Satan's Guide to the Bible (REBUTTED)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 29 มิ.ย. 2024
- In this episode Trent rebuts the arguments of a viral video called "Satan's Guide to the Bible".
To support this podcast: / counseloftrent
Original Video: • SATAN'S GUIDE TO THE B...
00:00 - Introduction
00:58 - Biblical Inerrancy
02:43 - Is Exodus Historical?
05:35 - Israelites were Canaanites?
06:54 - Dash Babies on Rocks?
09:10 - Israelite Child Sacrifice?
12:54 - Killing Canaanite Children?
18:21 - Biblical Forgeries?
20:27 - No Empty Tomb?
20:58 - Failed End Times Predictions? - บันเทิง
"The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn’t exist" is actually no longer true. Now, it's convincing the world he's the good guy.
When i look at satanists (atheist type) i can only see that meme of darth vader saying:
Yo dudes the empire is pretty chill maybe you could like join it or something
What I find funny is they think a guy who only wishes for them to burn and suffer because he can’t share in Gods glory is the good guy 💀
There is a chapter in C.S. Lewis' Screwtape Letters were the tempter's considers whether it is better to have men be atheists and unaware of devil's and their subtle temptations or to heave men be satanists and superstitious.
And folks will still fall for it. Pray for them
The Devil is a gradualist (just like the Left).
"A time is coming when men will go mad, and when they see someone who is not mad, they will attack him, saying, 'You are mad; you are not like us.” - St. Anthony of Egypt
Y'all have been mad from the Jesus bled out on the cross. You've given the world nothing more or less that 2000 years of unhinged, psychotic nonsense, epitomized most hilariously by your belief that you regularly consume the actual flesh and blood of your long-dead "god."
Seems like we’re getting pretty close to that right now
Now the question is, who shall be the ones categorized as mad and the ones categorized as sane?
@@elpepeetesech5405I’d say the people that have gone mad are the people that normalized suicide and depression and mental illness keyword “mental illness” (literally means your clinically insane) say what they want about our “imaginary God” he keeps me happy..
@@elpepeetesech5405it’s definitely the group living a lie. That would be team “survival of the fittest” who simultaneously screams how about how bad the rich are and needing to “help” the poor. Double think is a clear sign of madness. All leftists must participate in double think.
When a fundamentalist becomes a non-believer they really just become a non-believing fundamentalist.
This is sooo accurate.
Accurate
Precisely
This is sooooo common. People swinging from one extreme to another.
Is there truth to a lot of dogmatic atheists being former fundamentalists?
Might want to change the thumbnail a smidgen. The red border at the bottom might make users think they've already watched this video.
Good catch!
Yeah I was so confused when I saw this. I thought it glitched. I saw a bit of another video rebutting this same video and it had a similar thumbnail. So I thought TH-cam jumped me forward.
I saw that as well. I thought it was some sort of trick so that people will go "have I watched that video?" and click on it.
Thanks! Just changed it
50th like
The video is very clearly aimed at the evangelical crowd. The very first section is about those preaching the 'inerrancy' of the text.
"I dont believe in your book but I will tell you how to read it"
For real bruh , they don't even understand the grace of God .
I mean yeah, it's easy to ignore or re-interprete blind spots when you have incentive to believe it.
@Filioquist I don't reject islam because of my understanding of what the Quran teaches, I reject it because the doctrines preached by muslims are false, both those prooftexted by the Quran and those proven through other means. I know they're not true because they're incompatible with the religion that has the best evidence (in the form of miracles) in support of it: christianity.
@@tafazziReadChannelDescription how do you know the doctrines taught by Islam are false the doctrines taught in Catholicism are true
@@SenorCinema Evidence. Anyone can claim to be a messenger from God, therefore the tiebreaker are miracles. The only claimed miracles that I have sufficient (and overabundant) evidence happened confirm the christian revelation.
Satan's guide to the bibe unintentionally portrays the most accurate depiction of the devil possible. Twisting Gods word to lead children into darkness.
Why? How is educating the masses of the real danger of religion supposed to be evil?
@@matthewglenguir7204 real danger huh, that's interesting, I like how you said religion despite the fact that the entire documentary is cherry picking and try to argue against the inerrancy of scripture as well as the life of Jesus and the gospels meanings of what Christ said, I noticed so much cherry picking and taking every text literally.
It's crazy how a long time ago they wouldn't dare admit or openly worship satan , now they push him in music videos and stupid crap like that.
@matthewglenguir7204 Education is not biased. When you cherry puck, then exclude information and context with the express purpose of making the subject look bad it is not education. It is deception.
The Satan you believe in is a post-Biblical theological invention.
In your own book, God and Satan make a bet over Job’s righteousness, so it seems like they’re on pretty good terms according to your religion.
I got recommended the "documentary" earlier this week; and over the last few days, recommended rebuttal videos. I was just waiting for Trent to do his work.
Patience pays off.
Did you watch the original video?
the phrase "satan's guide" is enough for me not to watch, because why would i hear out the prince of lies?
@@kooolainebulger8117 Considering thumbnails are click bait, a rationale human would analyze content themselves.
A Christian would match what the original video says compared to their bible to judge its worth.
That anyone would accept this as a "documentary" would be beyond laughable...
...if it wasn't for the fact that whoever produced this clearly intended it to appeal to children - or to those poor souls possessing little more than a child's mindset. One must wonder whether there'll be enough millstones to go around.
And it's as pathetic, reductive, and dishonest as you expected right??
Trent Horn lies for god. It's what he does. The original video is dead on and factually true. No rebuttal possible.
As always detractors of the Bible know it best. Because they aren't motivated to lie about it or twist things into being more in line with their 'faith'.
Recognition of genre is one of the most important aspects of biblical interpretation
True. But I find that apologist tend to be hyperbolic about how well it accounts for what is being pointed out.
Just like those war narratives.
True. Provided that it is not taken too far
@@evansplittorff6942 Wrong
@@evansplittorff6942 Idiot
No, it is heretical! Shame on you!
This is peak irony. Like am I supposed to trust a guy represented as satan?
the future is so advanced that satire is self authoring
It's trolling
The video itself points out that the word "satan" just means adversary. If you have someone speaking against a particular view or idea, then they are an adversary to it, and therefore would be a "satan."
The video makers are trying to have fun with that fact, making the video more provocative so that more people see it and hopefully pay attention.
@@michaelweiske702 true, but unfortunately, people don't have enough of an attention span to notice the mistakes which are intentionally made subtle.
@@michaelweiske702 one of the things that bothered me about the documentary was the beginning where they stressed a distinction between "satan" and the "devil" as two different entities. I have heard arguments for that view in the past, but I think from the book of Revelation it becomes clear that Christians understand them as two names for the same thing. But the documentary was cheeky about it and didn't present any argument at all. It's the same atheist bs from satanists.
While satan means adversary or accuser, devil comes from diábolos meaning slanderer. I think a lot of the documentary is slander so...
It is amazing to me how obtuse some readers of the Bible can be: it's as if a reader of Dostoyevsky's "Crime and Punishment," which recounts the acts and inner life of a murderer, would conclude that Dostoyevsky's novel therefore approves of murder, when in fact, the novel is a powerful indictment of modern ideologies that try to justify certain types of murder.
Except you forgot the part where god actually commanded the slaughter of amalekite infants
@@SenorCinema You're applying the secular position that death is the greatest evil because secularism asserts existence ends with life, and applying that to the Christian position that God acted in history, and getting upset that, when looking at history as we believe it is through this lens of secular morality, God acted in a way you disapprove of.
God is the one who created life and in fact is causally, though indirectly, responsible for allowing physical death to happen in the first place. You're applying an arbitrary line to what's morally acceptable in your eyes, and saying "creating life and allowing natural death is one thing, but directly causing death is too far!"
How on Earth can you logically hold that position?
How is God explaining how to keep slaves and what to do with your slaves a “powerful indictment” of those justifying slavery?
@@Konxovar0 very simply, actually-it’s the only position that logic would permit one to hold, because it’s the only position there is actual evidence for.
@@andyghkfilm2287 Did you read what I wrote before that sentence?
Why do they think that using the embodiment of Evil will change our minds?
because they love their master
Easy. Just ridicule the opposing side into submission. That’s what the documentary does.
they are doing it for the pure mockery. Jesus name trembles them.
They're trolling
It's a bit of irony.
Traditionally, the serpent is seen as the Satan character. If you pull from that then this Satan is telling you some truths (maybe in an attempt to drag you to Hell) but they are in some sense true.
If you can't get past the character being used then you're kind of part of the joke.
Atheists not repackage frequently answered Biblical challenges and misunderstand history challenge.
Level: impossible.
Atheists don’t use straw mans challenge! (99.99% fail!)
Did you actually watch that documentary? Most biblical scholars who point out the issues with the bible are believers. It's not atheists who "misunderstand history", it's believers who pointed out those issues first.
@michaw7408 Did you actually watch the rebuttal? Did you know the people who pointed out that stuff first answered it, and the skeptics just stop there? Did you realize the documentary only exists to stick a finger in someone's eye and won't impress anyone but other edgy, like-minded atheists? That's why they decided to use Lucifer to give the lessons. It's a silly pseudo documentary and doesn't deserve to be taken seriously.
You are not an honest person. Have the last word if you like.
Frequently answered doesnt mean correctly answered
Apologists answers are garbage which is why the questions keep getting asked.
I don’t understand how people’s reading of the “dash your babes against the rock” psalm can be so mislead.
The point of the psalm is that Babylon is so horribly evil that anyone who invades it would feel happy taking the worst, most brutal kind of revenge. It doesn’t say “God says we should smash your babies on rocks” it says “happy will HE be who smashes your babes against the rock.”
Yes that's how I always thought of the passage. It represents how evil Babylon had become.
In Eastern Orthodoxy there is also a metaphorical reading of this. Babylon is the whore of Babylon, the root of all evil and her "babies" are sins. "Happy will he be who smashes sins against the rocks".
I don't think that's as misread as you think. this is anecdotal but every time I've discussed that with someone they generally understand its talking about retributively killing babylonian children and that's still terrible.
Because responding with evil to evil is the way to go, gotcha
@@circuitboardprojects6500 nope not what it’s saying. It’s saying that some societies are so evil and oppressive that the people who successfully overthrow them delight in their misery. It’s not PREscriptive its DEscriptive
Ahhhhhh first time being early!!!! Trent, I loved your debates with James White. You did amazing. Keep doing the great work
Devil is twisting God's words. Who could've thought of that
No, he wasn't, he was LITERALLY using gods words to show that what preachers learn in seminary they AREN"T preaching to their congregations.
Bro is literally doing his job
A cartoon character can twist God's words?
No, he is telling us what God doesn’t want you to know. “You shall not die, for God knows that when you eat of it you’re eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”
The day that they ate the fruit they didn’t die, but rather their eyes were opened.
@@AngelRamirez-zv6qpBut they lost their immortality and died
Was waiting for this rebuttal when I saw that IP had also made a rebuttal to that video.
Combo of IP and Trent is great.
IP?
@@contextiscool7308 InspiringPhilosophy, a Christian apologetics channel.
@@contextiscool7308 InspiringPhilosophy
Inspiring Philosophy@@contextiscool7308
@@contextiscool7308 Inspiring Philosophy
I saw that video show up on my feed a few months ago. I started watching it and when it got to the part of their being no archeological evidence of the exodus i stopped it and thought “ I hope Trent horn discovered this and does a rebuttal.” I’m so pleased to find that you did!
Boy it seems like that original “satans guide” video was really pushed. I had it suggested to me many times. Seems like many others did as well.
The archeological evidence of the exodus Trent produces here is SERIOUSLY weak. We basically go from the hordes of people Moses led out to a couple of guys that successfully snuck away and made it to Caanan.
There is no archeological evidence for the exodus though. Thats just a fact.
"There is no direct evidence for any of the people or Exodus events in non-biblical ancient texts or in archaeological remains, and this has led most scholars to omit the Exodus events from comprehensive histories of Israel."
I love it when people try and say the Bible is evil, because people do evil things in it. Then they immediately quote judges. A huge part of judges is that Israel had no king, and because of that Israel fell into chaos and depravity. Shows they just looked up a list of “evil” Bible passages online, and didn’t bother with figuring out the context.
“In those days there was no king in Israel, and everyone did what was right in their own eyes”
Every time that a real and sincere historian/archeologist has gone out and tried to disprove the Bible it has backfired on them, and they wind up upholding the Bible narrative. The only way, at this point, that these people can NOT believe is willful ignorance and pride. We need to pray for them, that the Holy Spirit should not abandon them to their iniquity, but rather give them the grace of conversion.
"Every time that a real and sincere historian/archeologist has gone out and tried to disprove the Bible it has backfired on them, and they wind up upholding the Bible narrative."
Did you mean "never?" As in, that doesn't actually happen and this is just a pleasing fiction theists tell themselves?
Nice Dogmatic BS
@@shassett79 I'm hesitant to reply in case I'm feeding a troll, but it's probably worth it. How do you explain the archeological discovery of Sodom and Gomorrah? Surely you don't think there were nuclear weapons available at that point in history. When you suggest OP substitute the word "never" into his statement, it implies to me that you've never looked for any evidence and instead merely assume your easier perspective is correct. If you'd like I may have some time to collect other examples than the one at the forefront of my memory.
@@shassett79
Uh, no, this kind of thing happens all the time.
@@FBI-ju5no Why bother making a claim like this without offering an example?
The "El" thing is possibly the silliest objection. Anyone who's studied the Baal cycle and read Genesis-Exodus can easily see that the Abrahamic books are written almost specifically as a polemic against Canaanite religion.
Canaanite mythology cast Baal as the better of two sons of El, but El unjustly favored his other son Yah over Baal. In that light, it's really easy to see the Abrahamic books as setting the record straight, and specifically setting themselves up as an alternative narrative to the Baal cycle.
israelite mythology has way less of a "we just copied homework" relation with Canaanite mythology and much more of a Thesis/Opposing Thesis relationship.
Almost like how protestants write polemics against Catholicism. Have you noticed that protestants originally came from Catholics?
If only more atheists understood this...we would have a lot less stupid takes on the Internet.
Actually, I think you are missing the point. This was all born out of the same mess and 'cleaned up' over centuries. There was not "god's word handed down from heaven", but a slow evolution of mythology over the times. Yes, it's clear that the OT texts move away from the pantheon of gods to the monotheistic version later in the Bible, but the remnants are still clearing in the earliest texts. It's all just fan fiction in the end.
You see that yahweh was a son of another God right? You explained that yahweh is a son, brother, once was a husband but like all women in the Bible she was disposable, even if a goddess. Yahweh was the son of Asherah, then her husband but hey inbreeding in cool right?
@@christyadams9235 What?
Grateful for your approach and based responses. Have really enjoyed your book "Hard Sayings: A Catholic Approach to Answering Bible Difficulties".
Was waiting for someone of your caliber to take on this series. Thank you, Trent!
Trent Horn got owned by Matt Dillahunty
@@gabrielochoa5829lol. Matt is super cringe.
@@LuzianJ So is christian apologists.
@@PartnershipsForYou lol. Do you live in your mother's basement? And you think Christians have a hard dating life 🤣🤣🤣
Of what caliber..... haha.... dudes a laying duche canoe
Thank you.
I saw the original a while back and was thoroughly disgusted by it. The arguments are level 1 atheist talking points and everyone in the comment sections and the creator were patting themselves on the back for being "enlightened".
Thank you Trent for covering this.
And these are pretty much level 2 responses that someone can similarly rebut in one fashion or another.
The point of the first is to acknowledge that churches teach certain things to the youth to strengthen the faith and hide others to not diminish their faith.
Can you acknowledge that as a bad thing?
It’s the same here…weird that u can’t see that.
"The point of the first is to acknowledge that churches teach certain things to the youth to strengthen the faith and hide others to not diminish their faith." Wrong @ess_Border
@@Boundless_Borderno, since it would only be a bad thing insofar as the things “churches” taught to “strengthen the faith” were falsehoods, since one cannot build faith on lies. Likewise, if they “hid,”or - likely more accurately - didn’t focus on certain matters in order not to diminish the faith, this would only be bad if it were for dishonest reasons. It may be good not to reveal or discuss some things if a teacher or an audience is ill-equipped to grapple with them, because you would be needlessly scandalizing persons who, had they had a larger knowledge base, would not be scandalized receiving the same information. Scandal from the ill-prepared teacher, incompetence, and from the ill-prepared audience, ignorance. Whether the emphasis or de-emphasis is done in order to deceive is what would make it wrong. Not the emphasis or lack thereof itself.
A difficulty doesn’t necessarily make a doubt, and as far as the prudence of when is appropriate to address particular difficulties is concerned, this could only be determined on a case-by-case basis.
@@ponti5882
There are false teachings that churches propagate. You can call them simplifications but they are indeed inaccurate teachings.
Similarly, churches do hide details so that members don't struggle with their faith. You even agreed to it but you consider it acceptable. While it could be for entirely well meaning reasons it is a simple fact that churches purposefully focus on certain aspects of the faith and ignore others despite potential theological importance.
While you may think it is for the greater good (which you allude to) a common reason for deconversions is because the church being not entirely honest despite being well meaning.
A nice phrase that encompasses this is that many times the lie is more damning than the truth.
The fact that you feel it is right to lie or hide information from children so that they don't struggle with their faith is very telling to the fact that this is closer to indoctrination rather than education.
Trent’s knowledge of Scriptures is very impressive.
I strive to one day be on his level
@@JesusIsKing_AlphaandOmegasame
No, ignorant & heretical! Shame!!
@@easternRomanOrthodox dude, I don’t care what stupid denomination you are, his knowledge is impressive, step off.
G@i@@easternRomanOrthodox
Wow, there's a whole lot of stupid comments here. "Obviously if it happened in the Bible that means God wanted it" seems to be the running theme.
I honestly don’t think they’re suaded by logic or the actual words in the book.
This is disturbing stuff. Some really broken people out there.
Happy Feast day of Saint Peter's Chair!
You’re disturbed by a cartoon? Yes there are lots of broken people out there and many of them are priests.
@@Swinefeldcartoons can be disturbing, I was disturbed when I read chapter 375 of Berserk, and I was even more disturbed when I heard of this.
What kind of awful person do you have to be to see an opinion that goes counter to yours and deem those people 'broken'?
@@Kibaoftheleaves your statement is too general and opens yourself up to rebuttals like “people disagree with me about r@ping animals, do you think they aren’t broken too?”
@@Devout214I don't think they are broken if they believe in the garden of eden,i just believe they are ignorant. They just need information,you have it in the satan's guide.
Also,Berserk is not a cartoon, is a comic book 😑
The 'documentary' reminds me of a saying.
'With a hammer in your hand, you tend to see every problem as a nail.'
What do you mean exactly? I'm not even sure if you're criticizing atheists or Christians here - both groups could be seen as biased.
I just want to mention that the uploader blocked certain links and names, such as Mike Jones, who did a 3 hour stream adressing some of the arguments. Thats the level of petty hate we are talking about with that guy
The evil adversary himself being petty? That would NEVER happen. 😂
Well done. One of your best videos of this year so far. Great audio by the way, sounds natural.
I had read about an interesting insight about the Canaanite slaughter narratives. Consider events where God’s wrath is kindled against some people, and someone like Moses intervenes and interceded for mercy on them, or how Abraham kept narrowing down the number of righteous in Sodom that God would not smite them for. It could be that, though God’s mortal judgment against a people is just, he is also calling his people to mercy, which they failed to do with Canaan.
Thank you for fulfilling my request to rebut this video Trent!
El was also just the word for "god". I think this may actually be a big problem in discerning what an enscription is trying to actually say. It is similar to English, where we say God speaking of the LORD, whereas 'god' is also just the word referring to any deity; a similar thing happened where el was just the word for any god, but El was also the name of their high god.
Along with this, the God of the Bible is sometimes written as "Elohim," which means "the powers." "Elohim" is a plural word, but for most of the Bible is treated as a singular, with one notable exception in Genesis "Let *us* make them in *our* image."
That was my point exactly! I am fluent in the Hebrew & I can tell you that Horn & Akin are the biggest heretics of our time! Shame!
El Elyon
@@evolgenius1150 El Elyon refers to the supreme God YHVH the Father, that's in Hebrew. "El" is just a general word for any "god" , whether real or not
Wow! This was really well done, Trent! Thank you Brother for posting this 🙏
youtube kept pushing this to me for some reason and I know I'm not the only one. thank you for covering this!
"Satan's guide to the Bible" oh, you mean the father of lies is trying to convince me the Bible is evil and he is not? Very interesting implications.
great pfp
Have you ever seen God with your eyes? I'll wait....
@@donquique1 Have you ever seen the Higgs Boson with your eyes? i'll wait.
There are things that can't be known by sight alone. God is one of them. if you want to see God's full divinity and the full humanity that he acquired, you can go to a Eucharistic adoration in a church near you.
He didn't lie in the Garden of Eden, God did
@hardbolts, your profile makes the comment so much better
“However the documentary doesn’t seriously consider that God is the author of life, and so god does nothing wrong by ending our lives. If I have you 20 dollars today and took 20 dollars tomorrow, I haven’t wronged you because that’s a gift you never had any right to in the first place. God also has the right to end life as he sees fit including through violent means, if that was necessary to make a public judgment against a gravely sinful people.”
So what I’m getting from this is that it’s okay for god to do the opposite of what he purveys, to murder, because he created us? Is it okay for a mother to disembowel a child she bore? We have no right to life, and yet we’re held responsible for what we’re given? If the canaanites really were so awful, that’s by gods design and it’s his fault as much as it is theirs. Dr Frankenstein isnt blameless for the sins of his monster, HE CREATED IT, and thus the ethical responsibility of putting him down lies on him as well. God isn’t an exception to a rule just because he created it, he’s just as responsible.
Shhh, just let God continue to drown babies, throw them at rocks, feed them to bears, give them the plague, endorse slavery, commands his army to kill entire cities while telling them to spare the *VIRGIN WOMEN* so they can get r*ped by his soldiers, and the list of evil deeds goes on and on. It's cool because he's God. I guess a mom can easily shoot her ALIVE BREATHING AND CONSCIOUS KIDS because she made them. Hey wait... These same people advocate for this dumb stance, yet, are mad about aborting a clump of cells with no consciousness but God can kill babies and children that are fully alive and ARE conscious? The hypocritical thinking is crazy.
Frankenstein may not be blameless for the sins of his monster, or for the things he did to it, but Mary Shelly is. People don't go around calling her horrible and evil because she created characters and then had them die.
Trent, your books and videos have brought me deeper and deeper into my faith. Thanks so much
Trent is a legend
Lmao ok
in your fractured ret4rd mind, probably
Thank God we have trent on our side.
Why is Christianity always criticized? Who's behind this?
People who are tired of Christianity's cultural hegemony in the West?
@@shassett79jews
@@shassett79 doesn’t sound right. There’s a certain group who’s hated Jesus since the beginning. Trying to erase his message.
If you know, you know
@@crasnicul3371 I hope this is ironic antisemitism, but I wouldn't be surprised to find out it isn't.
@@borginburkes1819 Let me guess.... the Jews?
I love your rebuttals!
Same
He sucks, no El god? ,
Thanks for your work, Good bless you.
I’m so glad someone’s covering this video. I saw it in my recommended like a month ago and thought it was a funny gag video. Watched like 15 minutes and turned it off because of the bogus claims in it
Yep❤️✝️
you turned it off because you are closed minded and couldn't possibly even see what the other side has to say.
@@rizzcool5983 if its not the truth. Why watch it.
Its Satan for sake. The fallen angel who lies. Why believe him.
I will watch others talk about the Bible but not a demon or Satan.
❤️✝️
@@GlobalBricks1 you think satan made a TH-cam video, or was it satire? You won’t know if it’s untrue until you watch it. How would you know if the Bible is real if you didn’t read it? Your logic makes no sense.
@@rizzcool5983 no I’m willing to hear people out, but when people bring strawmen at me and say it’s fact then they have less credibility. I’m open as a blank canvas or an open page. I’m saying the video made some of the weakest claims against the Bible, and god.
I didn’t watch the documentary, so maybe they addressed this. but animating the devil to tell you “facts” about Christianity makes as about of sense as animating Hitler to discourage antisemitism
I saw this video a while ago and immediately thought of how much I would love to see Trent destroy it. Thank you Trent, you are the reason I got into apologetics. 🇪🇸
wouldn't it be better to figure an objective way to find which parts of the Bible are literally true and which are not, instead of unconditonally defending your ideology? that tells me you are not looking for the truth behind the Bible stories, but instead how to support a belief system in spite of contradicting evidence.
@@holyguacamole4058What do you mean by objective way? Trent gave both linguistic and theological reasons.
@@LuzianJ "objective" is the antonym of "subjective", but ok: by "objective" I mean the property of being independent of personal opinions, beliefs, preferences, biases, etc. in addition, "reasons" are not "ways" or "methods", and precisely that's why I advocate for ways of telling apart reality from fiction, that can be tested and adopted by others.
@@LuzianJ a theological reason is dependent on certain beliefs, that's why such reason can never be objective, because it will obviously be biased towards the sacred text or tradition that backs the theological framework. it would be the Bible validating the Bible.
@@holyguacamole4058 that is why I said trent also gave linguistic reasons, plus historical accouts of people taking them as non-literal.
I appreciate you going over such a vast variety spanning so many parts of the Bible. It really is impressive!
You are awesome man! Thanks for doing what you do!
I think it's funny that the people who made the documentary took Satan, the literal main villain of the Bible, the guy known worldwide for being a manipulator and for bending the truth, the guy known as the Father of Lies, and said "Yeah, I'm gonna listen to him"
This is a rather sad rebuttal. 😅
If I boil your points down - you agree on how outrageous some things in the Bible are, yet these aren’t necessarily pointing to what God wants or expects 😅 and atheists and some Christians aren’t interpreting it the right way. 🤔 that would leave one question for me - what is the Bible good for??? 😂
Really appreciate this video
Thanks Trent. Great video. God bless🙏
There is a very fascinating documentary titled “Patterns of Evidence: Exodus”. It goes into how the archeological dating of ancient Egyptian dynasties may be hundreds of years off based on a misidentification of who the Pharaoh named in Exodus actually refers to. Then when looking at the archeological evidence for a mass departure of Jews from Egypt, it’s true no evidence is seen in the traditionally accepted timeline. However, if you look in the modified timeline, there is evidence for a mass departure of Jews from Egypt.
that's a terrible recommendation. The author has been proven multiple times to be a fraud.
If you want some good resource to recommend, point people to Jimmy Akin's 2 episodes on the Exodus, or the longer series by the channel "Ancient Egypt and the Bible" called "Evidence for the Exodus".
I know Inspiring Philosophy has videos on this and other things like the Flood or the Tower of Babel, and refers to what the figurative language might have been talking about,
Babe, come quick! Trent posted!!
lol a Christian apologist having a girlfriend
Funniest joke I’ve heard all week
@@PartnershipsForYou it’s not that inconceivable, especially since she’s into Catholic apologetics too, haha.
I assume you came to this video to hear a counter argument from Trent? That’s pretty big of you! Glad to have you here
@@PartnershipsForYou are you implying people whose entire identity is based on what kinks they like in bed are better long term partners than Christian apologists. Lol. Get a reality check.
@@PartnershipsForYouSeems like some serious projection. Almost all Christian apologists on YT have nice thriving families.
@@LuzianJ name 3.
So glad you did this. Thanks Trent!
Saw this the day it came out, was hoping to see a rebuttal
They can trust Satan, we will trust God. Amen 🙏🏼 ❤
I'll be honest, I was kind of excited when first watching the "documentary" because I thought it would bring up some interesting points and whatnot, then I almost immediately realized it's just the same old arguments that have been debunked time and time again, as well as the awful talking points of new atheists that target the stupidest takes that nobody really believes and I was like, "Of course" and went on with my day.
That's how I feel about Trent's video.
Believing in fantasy
Ah, yes, an indirect "No True Scotsman" fallacy. Couldn't have seen that one coming, lmao. You Christians are so obsessed with persecution that you even do it to each other. Those Christians who disagree with _you_ aren't "real" Christians, right? Their ideas are just "the stupidest takes" that "nobody really believes?"
Have you never heard of Evangelicals? Pew's "Religious Landscape Survey" of 2014 found that almost _10%_ of Americans are evangelical Christians -- Southern Baptists, Pentecostals, and the like. If you're not an American, then I kind of get it. I showed a Norwegian buddy some clips of some Baptist sermons lately and he genuinely didn't believe they weren't simply hyperbolic parody at first.
The SBC president, Greer, is on record saying "we must be a gospel-above-all people." It is the explicit policy of the SBC (and many other Christian sects) that when evidence and fundamentalism come into conflict, they opt to simply ignore the evidence. "Right readers reading rightly" came from a Baptist. Most evangelicals _do_ believe that the gospels were literally written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, for example, despite the fact that it says _in most copies of the Bible_ at the intro to those chapters that the authorship is anonymous.
You call those Christians' take "stupid," but they say the same of yours. I think you _both_ have beliefs that lack rational epistemic justification. It was searching for that justification that led to _me_ becoming no longer a Christian. I wanted to have the best reasons possible to believe so that I could convince others, but ended up finding out I didn't actually have _any_ good reasons. Still haven't been presented with any, though of course I do try to have conversations to ask for the reasons. I'm not so arrogant as to think my knowledge of _anything_ is by any means complete _or_ completely accurate.
Is there any objective way to actually _show_ that either of you -- any theist for that matter -- isn't merely engaged in autodeception? I think it's hilarious that theists with motivations to rationalize the text to better fit their own preconceptions argue baselessly with each other and expect anyone to take them seriously while they _both_ agree that the actual academic scholarship is bogus. You guys bickering amongst yourselves is no different from a flat-earther arguing with a hollow-earther from where I'm sitting. Neither of you can actually _show_ that you're right, and in almost 100% of cases a theist will believe that they and only they have the right answer while _every other theist_ who believes in a different god has it wrong. To me, that's the peak of unjustified arrogance. As the person sitting here going "actually, I'm not convinced _any_ of you are right," I'm often accused of being the biased or arrogant or unreasonable one, but I'm the only one who can actually _show_ objectively verifiable rational justification for every truth claim I make. Theists can't.
I mean, argue with the scholars all you like, but it helps if you actually articulate a specific argument and hopefully provide some evidence to back it up rather than flat-out dismissing a quarter of all Christians as having "stupid" takes *_as though your own belief in magic is any less unjustified than theirs._* The difference between academia and echo chambers is that in academics, the whole point is to try to prove ideas _wrong._ If you think the general consensus of secular scholars (most of whom are Christians) is wrong, then maybe try _showing_ how that is so rather than merely asserting that they're "the same old arguments." That would be the way to contribute to a _productive_ conversation.
If I'm wrong about there being no evidence for your god sufficient to rationally warrant belief, then I'd like to know. I neither chose to no longer be a Christian nor did I _want_ to not be a Christian. I simply found out the reasons I believed which I thought were good were actually not, and I have yet to actually find a good one.
So here's my question for you:
*What is your **_best_** example of a "tired old argument" that was cited in Satans Guide to the Bible that has been "debunked time and again," and how was it debunked?*
@@MySnugglePuppy Wow, yet another Christian who doesn't know what words mean. It's cool, dictionaries exist. Here, I'll help you.
According to Oxford Language:
*_Evangelist_* - noun - "a person who seeks to convert others *_to the Christian faith,_* especially by public preaching."
*_Documentary_* - adj - "consisting of official pieces of written, printed, or other matter."
- noun - "a movie or a television or radio program that provides a factual record or report."
Why don't you take Jesus's advice and take the log out of your own eye before complaining about the splinter in your neighbor's eye? Your post is not only factually mistaken about _what words mean,_ but it reeks of childish desperation to smear the opposition via ad hominem attacks rather than engaging with the subject matter itself.
Was petulant childishness really the best defense you can offer for Christianity? Do you genuinely have _nothing_ to say with regard to the actual subject matter being discussed in this thread? If so, you've utterly failed at what your god commanded of you in 1 Peter 3:15. You're reinforcing many of the negative stereotypes of Christians. If that's your goal -- by all means, you do you. I'd think it was entertaining if I didn't genuinely pity such feebleminded cowards.
@@przemeksledziewski1973waiting on your debunking video then.😊
Great Rebuttal! Thank you Mr. Horn for your wise thoughts and comments.
When it’s convenient we’ll take this literally, when it’s non so convenient “oh this part is non literal”
They don’t call him the deceiver for nothing
Mankind is a rationalizing animal; not a reasoning one. Alexander Hamilton
You are proof of that..
Explain
@@manne8575 almost all people are more prone to using their mind to justify their actions and beliefs rather than using the scientific method with logic and unbiased facts to try and nullify their beliefs, desires and actions.
A highly intelligent person usually just uses more elaborate arguments to defend their already established conclusions.
A six thousand years ago Creationist with a Medical Degree will be just as hard to reason with as an eighth grade school ditch digger who believes the same.
@@craigbritton1089 Nope I disagree, Trent is correct. Have a nice day.
@@manne8575 a rationalizing with no reasoning: thanks for illustrating the point
@@craigbritton1089 Yeah, atheists are definitely great examples of that
Babe wake up, a new Trent Horn banger just dropped
Thanks Trent! Good work!
Oh my! 2:50 I do believe that the exodus accounts of 600,000 adult men (ages 20-60 as per the census back then) left Egypt. What evidence do they say is missing, what is difficult about maintaining such a belief? I'm curious what they said.
Yes. Especially since absence of evidence does not logically mean evidence of absence. What do they expect to find? Tablets from Pharoah praising his loss and the defeat of the gods of Egypt? Footprints and campfires from thousands of years ago in the middle of a desert?
@@zatoichi1 if you believe the entire biblical account it says clearly, they ate bread from heaven, that their shoes on their feet didnt wear out, that they were surrounded by clouds of glory. In other words it was a miraculous existence, so looking for traces of a regular nation doesn't make sense either.
Beyond the lack of archeological evidence (which is, after all, just the absence of evidence) for a mass Exodus event, I have heard it claimed that with so many adult men (plus women and children) the time table doesn't work because of the sheer numbers. I'm just going from memory here but I think things include the red sea crossing etc.
Keep in mind I am just going from memory of argument against the large numbers, so do not take my comment as expressing the best argument in that direction; I am not steel manning their argument nor do I intend to strawman it
@@zatoichi1
I do want to say I find it interesting that the Exodus actually speaks about the Egyptian gods as if they were real. But that is a tangential remark.
Christian and Jewish teaching on false gods is not that they are imaginary, but rather demons masquerading and deceiving people into worshiping them as gods.
Absolutely love your videos. Always insightful and helpful!
Excellent review!
Jeptha may not have killed her, but similar to when Joshua gave captured slaves to the levies, she was sent away to never marry and serve God. She laments and asks to go and mourn her virginity. If she was going to be killed as a sacrifice, wouldn't she instead plead or mourn for her life?
21:13 "There is a difference between what the sacred author says and what the holy spirit asserted through his writtings". So basically the things you pick out are asserted and the things that are obviously false or immoral are just relativised?
It seems that that is what the whole video is about. It's about finding excuses for an errant book written by errant people so you can cling to the belive that it is inspired by an inerrant god.
Says is not the same as asserted. What’s asserted is what matters.
Yahweh was so outraged by the child sacrifice occurring in Canaan that he ordered the Israelites to…kill all the children. Makes total sense.
while he also was ordering them to sacrifice their firstborn.
@@mathiasrryba Exactly. None of it makes sense.
For a moment I thought "Satan's Guide to the Bible" was a apologetic video about WoKe distortion and this was an Atheist rebuttal against it.
Nope, turns out it's the contrary
As a Christian, part of me can’t help but wonder if “Satan’s Guide” is some kind of parody, given how incredibly ironic the concept is. Like it was made by a guy taking punches at both sides, laughing at the atheists who think this tired unoriginal narrative was legit, while also laughing at Christians for taking this pseudo-intellectual spew seriously enough to warrant a critical response.
God Bless You Trent🙏
It scares me that you think it’s completely moral for God to take the lives of children.
Why not?
@@judeugwu4987 do you have no common sense?
@@shatterhacked God gives life, He takes life. Life isn’t something owed to us, even to children. Only God has the right to take life as He gives it. A human has no moral right to take life, that’s why when a human murders, it is morally evil. Killing is basically stealing life that we have no right to take. Hope that explanation helps 👍🏾
@@judeugwu4987 life is a gift. You can’t take a gift back.
@@shatterhacked But it isn’t owed to us. If anything, we borrow our time here on earth from God. How God chooses to handle distribution of time to us is up to Him alone. It is a gift in the sense it is an act if mercy from Him, but we don’t own our lives and we don’t get final say on how we want to live it. God does. That’s why you’ll sometimes hear Christians say “God’s will be done with me” (Mt 6:10, Mk 14:36, Lk 22:42, James 4:13-15)
The statistics at the end of this presentation are consistent with something that was easily predictable long ago: sola scriptura ultimately undermines confidence in the Bible.
Why? Because once someone puts much thought at all into sola scriptura (and Protestantism/Evangelicalism generally), it falls apart. And it’s going to keep happening because Protestantism continues to disintegrate with the opening of each additional (supposedly) Biblical church.
Very sad. All easily avoidable too. All one needs to do is read about the early Church centuries before Constantine. Most people won’t do so, however, because they are lazy or afraid of what they will find. If you aren’t into reading, then Google Joshua Charles, Scott Hahn, and David Anders and hear from them - unquestionably, top experts on the Bible and former Protestant historians, pastors, and scholars.
There was a reason Christ founded a single Church and prayed for unity
Great video!
Thanks for your excellent work in rebutting. It’s interesting to note that atheists often criticize Christians of believing literally everything in the Bible, while they have no problem in doing so themselves.
Even with the simplistic view an atheist isn't believing everything in the Bible when they refute a very basic reading of it. They are simply taking it at face value.
Admittedly, it isn't necessarily the best approach but your criticism is extremely off.
@@Boundless_Border I don't know if it's that far off. Get rid of the word "everything" and it's probably accurate on average.
@@461weavile
Yeah. You're right that the atheist doesn't simply believe "in the Bible." They look at it as another of the fallible yet sometimes helpful works of humans.
You're right that if you remove the word everything it is probably mostly accurate.
I wish God had told us which parts are hyperbole and which parts he wanted us to take literally. It certainly would have reduced the number of different factions in The Church and unified the body of Christ.
It's possible God could've done it another way, but God did plan for that. Jesus promised the first Pope that the Holy Spirit would guide His appointed vicar into the fullness of truth. We can be confident in the interpretation because God promised it.
@@461weavile"You can believe us because we tell you that he told us that we defininitely got the authority. Don't mind all the smoking bodies of people burnt on stakes that disagreed with us across time, it's actually what god wanted! Yeah"
@@mathiasrryba First, if the testimonies of at least four people isn't enough for you, feel free to find any dissenting opinions. Boldly claiming "Jesus never said that" is not a persuasive argument.
Secondly, are you implying that the Church is not universally persecuted by pointing out the relatively small number of executions perpetrated by the Church? That's a laughable position and I suggest you keep that opinion to yourself to avoid any embarrassment.
@@461weavile There are no testimonies besides Paul who admits he's had a hallucination (but can't decide if it was auditory or visual one).
The church has been the tyrannical oppressor for the majority of its existence. Holding Europe by the balls, countries either kneeled to the pope or were getting invaded. Using heresy as an excuse to commit genocides across centuries.
My own country back in 9th century had to get baptized as a form of self defense to take away the right to invade and raze us from the catholics.
@@461weavile "The relatively small number of executions perpetrated by the Church" ?? Based on recent admissions, logic, and the law of averages I'm betting that throughout Catholic ecclesiastical history there must be an entire WORLD of children sexually abused by Catholic Clergy. But, hey, I guess those technically weren't "executions".
If "God can work through any author" as you say, then how is it that translation or copy errors and such exist? Shouldn't God personally ensure all "versions" are 100% accurate to his will, history, ethics, etc.?
Trent, some time ago, you made a video where you requested for people to list bible difficulties they want help with. Could you please do a video talking about the discrepancies in the gospels and other Bibilical writings? I found recently that Mike Lincona has a book about the topic and is releasing another one on the issue. Perhaps a dialogue with him after the new book comes out would be fruitful?
I wanted to rebut everything in the comments but realized I’d have to write an essay and at university I didn’t have the immediate time, thank you for standing up for what is true and especially for showing how bad faith every one of these arguments was, there were so many it made it seem weighty when it was really shallow as an argument.
Lol, I love the apologetic for the bible failing the tests of inerrancy... "Ha, it didn't fail inerrancy, its the word of God... objective, verifiable reality is what is wrong, not the bible". "Why? Because someone said the bible must be right a long time ago." ... "you're just reading it wrong, read it so that its not an error, even when it obviously is".
Nigga there are literally thousands of books on catholic doctrine. You aren’t the first person to ask those questions, you won’t be the last, read the encyclicals from the Pope, read the catechism of the Catholic Church. They have the answers you seek.
Christians love their circular reasoning lol
Saying gods moralty (eye for an eye doctrine) changed implies god was wrong and wasn't perfect. Also the analogy of "i gave you it so i can take it" implies many things. 1 that life is not our own and we are not given autonomy over our lives, and 2 that genocide/mass murder is fine as long as god does it. With this same logic killing abundant sinners could be justified based on the idea of a righteous cleansing just like in Canaan.
Brilliant as always
Satan’s guide to the Bible is a great piece of work! I’m glad it’s out there, the Bible is not perfect but inconsistent in a lot of aspects. I hope it goes viral TBH
“God created us so he can do whatever he wants with us.” With that logic it seems that God himself could dash a baby on the rocks and be glorified. What an abusive relationship Christians like Trent have with their god. If you haven’t watched Trent debate Alex O’Conner on this very subject, I would highly recommend watching it.
And are we to believe God didn’t want Jephthah’s daughter sacrificed? It seems He thought it was worth her suffering. If He didn’t want it, for whatever reason, He wouldn’t have allowed it to happen.
It’s curious how some verses are so cut and dry-the commandment thou shalt not kill, and God commanding the Israelites to kill-yet somehow we can discount the latter as hyperbole. Why? That’s special pleading. Trent accuses the documentary of cherry-picking and misinterpretation, and then proceeds to do the same. This is why so many Christians are leaving the faith, or their losing faith and becoming “moderates.”
I miss the old thumbnails 😢
So, “god” can just obliterate a child’s life because he “sees fit”? Well, then that god can kiss my foot.
Love your work, Trent, but regarding the violence in the Old Testament stuff, I really think you should read and consider the approach taken by the Biblical scholar Fr. Stephen De Young in his book God is a Man of War. He takes a similar approach (neither overly literal nor liberal) but I think he has a much stronger and more cohesive explanation of what's going on in Judges and in other places in the OT. It's really the best treatment of the subject I've ever heard or read.
hopefully someone at some point will make a response to this by making a documentary titled "God's guide to Atheism"
Making such a comment with such degenerate content is pretty amusing
Nah, religious people have 0 creativity
It exists, and it's called the Bible
@@dorettejack3997 I meant a video
@@MySnugglePuppy idk, sounds like skill issue to me
I find the "violent passages are from men, not God" argument one of the worst, as it seems to boil down to "some guy wrote a book that accuses God of ordering or performing horrible acts, even though God didn't really do that. Normally that would be a sin but this time you should venerate this book as holy and wonderful."
They don't say God did it though. They just assume it.
@@purplesamurai5205 I was mainly referincing Trent's argument starting at 15:36 in which he talks about fragments where God does indeed order it, as Trent admits in 12:54 .
@@icosahedron7497 Yeah and he showed why that's not wrong. God gives life, he can take it however he wants. We aren't owed anything, to think so shows you're not even indulging the theist argument, which most atheists don't.
@@purplesamurai5205 Yes, I'm not engaging with that argument, I'm engaging with a different argument, the one that Trent said at 15:36 . And this is not about God killing people, it's about God commanding the Israelites to kill people, including children. This poses a problem for Trent, because if God really did command it, then either a) God ordered an evil act or b) killing children isn't inherently evil, it's only sometimes evil. I think it's obvious why a) is a problem and as for b), that kinda undermines Trent's ethical arguments. Obviously there is also c) God did not in fact command it and in 1 Samuel 15 the prophet Samuel or whoever wrote the book is telling falsehood. Which is also a problem. If you say to which option you subscribe to I'll try to explain further what problems it causes.
@@icosahedron7497 That's another thing he refuted. He's saying that at the time, they were allowed to go killing children, but that now people aren't. There is no problem that arises from this.
Your other argument is somewhat of a false dichotomy. The second option is closer to correct. In theory, the only thing that is inherently evil is original sin/disobeying God. Though to say that killing children is only "sometimes" evil is extremely misleading, since in modern times, it is considered fully evil.
I distinctly remember several times throughout the Bible of God always saying "you have made your children pass through the fire. Which I did not command. Which I did not even think to command." He ALWAYS adds that last part whenever He talks about that. It's basically saying "I'm so against this I didn't even have an intrusive thought about it."
But yeah, God likes child sacrifice because a sinner did it in the Bible I guess...
I fail to understand why this debunks the point.
The very fact that these things occurs with the presence of God is in itself wrong..
It's always these aging hippies. BTW, InspiringPhilosophy made a 3hr response to that video 8 days ago. Haven't seen it myself, yet. So, I was pleasantly surprised you also made response. Kudos.
Soooo….basically if you believe the bible’s actual words it’s your fault. Lol
Problem number 2. Paul Revere never made the ride. He got scared, got drunk and fell off his house. A kid made the ride. His name just didn't work in the poem.
I just wish this video included more of his work because the documentary you are talking about was over an hour long
So the Bible condemns child sacrifice (probably just among the Israelites) but it’s ok if god does it because blah blah blah. What kind of crap is this? “God doesn’t doesn’t like it at all but he can and will do it everyday”. Youre seriously confused.
Im not persuaded.
"Do as I say not as I do"
And God is Good, whatever God does is good. Then God murders babies. Can we murder babies? No? Why? Cause Only God can do it. But it's good. No It's Only good for God
Trent if you keep bending over backwords thrying to justify all the wrongs in the bible you are going snap yourself in half and all wrongs will spill out.
The fackt that you actually belive and justify the bible frightes me.
😂😂😂
The end argument about people with the “all or nothing” approach to reading the Bible really resonates with me because I’ve made this exact same observation before, that atheist interpretations of the Bible are very close to fundamentalist interpretations.
A little footnote: that altar or statue "of the unknown god" in Athens that Paul spoke about is most likely a statue of a monotheistic god, which means that either Socrates or one of his direct followers made it, since they were pretty much the only monotheists in Greece at the time.
The point isn't what the Bible intended. it's how it's interpreted now and how it's understood. For example, it doesn't matter if canaanites were genocided or not. It matters that the bible is sharing that message in the first place. The bible is (whether intended or not) promoting genocide.
Small note: half of your rebuttal's premises rely on the existence of a Holy Spirit and its interference in the writings of the bible. Is there any proof besides the bible that shows the existence of this spirit? Scientifically? Or any proof that this supposed spirit actually helped write these passages? If not, then that doesnt fly logically.
Also, the point of this documentary isn't to convert anyone. It is to present the facts learned in seminary that most people wouldn't learn in sunday school. We aren't trying to say the bible is bunk. We're saying that it is false to say all of it is inerrant. I have no beef with anyone who says that they believe in Christianity, only beef in those who say that Christianity is the true religion and that those who say otherwise will burn in hell.
" it's how it's interpreted now and how it's understood"
- In the terms of the Canaanites, the command to destroy them entirely, is widely understood to be hyperbolic. Just because there are laymen giving their own literal interpretation, ignoring context, doesn't mean that it's the case.
"half of your rebuttal's premises rely on the existence of a Holy Spirit"
- It wasn't, in the terms of the biblical writers, he did reference it, but it wasn't the crux of his arguments.
"We're saying that it is false to say all of it is inerrant"
- Few people say this, most would only say it's morally inerrant, there are minor errors throughout, but none major.
@@rockweirdo8147 Each part of his rebuttals relies on the concept of God already existing. It sounds like rather than making the logic normally, he's making a conclusion first, then finding the argument from that (which isn't how logic works). Also, I don't care that the massacre of the canaanites was hyperbolic; I don't think your "morally inerrant" book wants to be teaching that God's chosen people should massacre those who don't agree with them.
@@alias_crouton2671 - Show me where his rebuttal relied on God existing.
Working from a conclusion into a general statement, is inductive logic, although I don't believe still that this is what he was doing, as you still need to answer my first question.
Saying to defeat the Cannanites, isn't a moral error, as war is sometimes necessary. Also, tell me where God says to war with the Cannanites because "they don't agree we me." Because you 100% set up a strawman there.
@rockweirdo8147 Inductive Logic doesn't work like that. Inductive logic draws a conclusion from inference and a premise rather than two premises. That does not mean that the conclusion creates the premises, which, as I've stated, seems to be the case here.
Second, yes it's true that I made a little strawman there. However, let's look at what is actually happening here. Canaanites are getting slaughtered and massacred all because they wouldn't leave the land they've been on for centuries! Whether hyperbole or not, the Bible is promoting conquest culture for no reason other than "because God said so."
Third, the entire argument against the video's claim on biblical forgeries. The idea that someone else writes the books would be problematic, but the argument made here states that because of God speaking through them, they can accurately depict facts. That is inherently hinging on the premise that there is a God who does exist and is writing through these people.
@@alias_crouton2671 - God was not warring with the Canaanites because they would leave the land, the land could hold both. However, the Canaanites were demonstrably immoral(Child sacrifice, general sexual immorality, Idolatry, etc.), and fought with Israel over the land, even as Israel was new and weak. They threatened the existence of their nation, wouldn't you go to war with them? Were they supposed to sit there and be destroyed or be corrupted?
That's why it was a strawman, and you're still making a strawman, because they didn't war with them "because God said so" although God did, but He had good reason to.
"but the argument made here states that because of God speaking through them, they can accurately depict facts."
- No, that was a minor part of the argument. Paul may not have written some of the letters he's attributed, but someone that was trusted did, otherwise these letters wouldn't have been held in such esteem. We've really no reason to say that Paul didn't write them, but if you'd like to doubt it, then you can, it's not like we're going to know anytime soon.