One thing that drives me crazy about this style of apologetics is that they're always coming up with reasons that the Bible doesn't actually say what it clearly says, but when it says to hate the same people they hate, that's when it means exactly what it says, no nuance necessary.
@@joe5959 I can't tell which side you're on so I don't know which argument you think you're making, but you're basically making my point for me. There is zero consensus regarding what you take literally and what's metaphorical, there's no criteria which can be agreed upon across the board, so when apologists get their hands on it, every single segment gets judged based on whatever point they want to make in that moment, to the point that two passages which are in the same paragraph will have different rules applied to them, not because of any scholarly textual criticism, but to line up with presuppositions. It's a subjective nebulous mess, and the fans keep selling it like a clear and perfect guide to life.
@joe5959 painfully wrong. Scholars aren't just assuming their own positions, they're approaching the topic with tools and methods *demonstrated to work. This is not the same thing that religious experts do, especially when looking at their own text.
@@joe5959 except that there's nothing "objective" about that, either (I wonder what your definition of subjective vs objective is, because every rabbi is a subject FWIW). You can make arguments that it's a more reasonable method than presuppositionalism, but you can't say that it's any less subjective or personal or philosophical. You can make the case that a randomly selected rabbi may have caused less harm in the world as a result of their religious beliefs than a randomly selected hate preacher, but that speaks to the individuals, it doesn't necessarily mean that the rabbi has a more "objective" outlook, it just means he's less apt to allow his religion to guide him to do harm.
That's actually not even true; sometimes it is, but half the time they do the exact same thing with people they hate too: they just have a prejudice to begin with, and then find some vague justification for it in the Bible that's maybe there if you squint.
So, this video was one of the funnest projects I have been priveledged to collaborate on. It's such an honour and joy to work with such exacting professionals like Paul and Josh. This video is everything I hoped it would be, and more.
My favorite part of the video was the part you and Dr Kipp laughed about being embarrassed if you wrote the article about the wall. Ancient OSHA. It seemed like a genuine reactionary critique between two experts that I could only appreciate as a layman spectator.
I don't like live streams much. Almost always too many interruptions and pauses which make me feel like my time is being wasted. Even worse when you end up with 4 people or more talking over each other. AronRa and his dogs...AHHH! Shorter ones are OK, but I just prefer an on topic, concise discussion.
Indeed. Even Gavin looked increasingly appalled at what Michael was saying despite pretending to be in agreement. You can see the wheels of cognitive dissonance turn in real time. On some level, he knows this is really messed up, but he gives it a free pass because, "God."
When you begin your argument from the position that a Celestial Dictator approves of all atrocities because He's just moving souls around a sandbox, you can justify any atrocity... as long as you're not the one that was affected.
Thank you for doing this video. The first time I came into contact with this part of the bible I was absolutely horrified, and the worst part for me was that the isrealites were portrayed as the "good guys". It didn't exactly help that the newborn christian sitting before me kept blankly saying that if god commanded it then it must be right and good. It's terrifying what religion can do to people.
“With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil - that takes religion.” - Steven Weinberg
@@Jk-ow8ny Yes, buddy. I am fully aware of that. But we’re talking about this happening within the same book, as if the conquest of Canaan is historically accurate as long as you ignore all the parts that are provably false, highly doubtful, or morally problematic; and just assume that the rest is true without evidence. And we’re not talking about a few words not being literally true, but important parts of the story; like the population size and what happened. The way analyzing history SHOULD work is that we only trust the parts that can be confirmed. But these guys are doing the opposite: Believing all the parts that have no evidence and only distrusting the parts that have evidence or don’t fit their preferred narrative. Because…if they only trusted the parts that have evidence, they’d have to throw the whole thing out.
I find it amazing that these apologists could be so ignorant (or desperate) as to suggest that, in the event of a siege, townspeople would _leave the protection of the walls_ and wait out the siege in the countryside. What do they think the purpose of city walls are? Townspeople stay _inside_ the walls during a siege where they have stockpiles of food and won't be harassed by the foraging parties and looters of the army they're hiding behind the walls from in the first place. Cope harder, apologists.
No, no. You see, the Israelite armies were totally different. If you were outside the city walls, they would actually pack and deliver your groceries right to you.
The "God is just moving people from one place to another" gets even worse, if you consider that these non-Chosen people that worshiped other gods wouldn't be moved to just any place, but to the very worst place imaginable.
O sometimes like to think god takes to heaven any innocent killed in these stories, and when they are like "what the hell with these guys following you??" God is like "yea yea dont remind me"
@@nikhtzatzi It's a nice thought. And I'm not disapproving of people imagining Gods nicer than the Bible and those preaching its words literally, tell us. As long as it's done in recognition that that isn't in the scripture. I think a lot of us like to imagine better ways things could be, than ancient people imagined. And it's fun to think up variations on their stories that align better with our own morality. We just have to be honest, and keep our eyes on the fact that this is what we'd imagine, and not fall into the trap so many others do. After all, almost every believer believes in a God that is how they imagine them to be, that sees things as they do, and considers them worthy of heaven. Even if they would consider most others that feel the same, to have it wrong. In the end, the truth is we don't know. And feeling like it's not the way that it is currently taught, is itself an admission of that. Every thought on that, is the same as any hope and prayer: A wish. And as long as you cannot change anything with action, I think wishing is not a bad thing.
This topic is not just academic. People are still dying based on the idea that Jewish people have been given the right to push out “other” people from “their” land.
This. I probably wouldn't waste any of my time on religious nonsense (i.e. watching TH-cam videos) if it wasn't being used as an excuse to actively harm people.
Just to be more specific and stave off any disingenuous accusations of antisemitism, I'd say that people are still dying based on the idea that the kingdom now nation-state of Israel is justified in the extermination of "others" in the name of cultural purity. Israel is a fascistic state, making blood and soil arguments with the aesthetic of millenia old religious propoganda. Israel is not "the Jews", and I won't even engage with the conflation so far as to let that be a description of their false pretense.
Very true! That was in the back of my mind throughout their discussion. The history of the Israelites in relation to Palestine has significant present-day ramifications.
@@ziploc2000 apologists keep asking us why we “obsess” over their religion. We would LOVE to ignore theists, if they would only stop using their religions to harm people.
As someone who has academically studied archaeology and did not make the cut, I am constantly perplexed with the bad faith demonstrated in conversations such as these. Sure, there is "back and forth" in areas such as anglo-saxon, scandinavian, gaellic, slavic and other european fields, but nowhere else than in the field of "biblical archaeology", where people's feelings are so deeply invested, do we encounter such bad faith. Put simply, a couple of guys with credentials in philosophy and other unrelated fields who happen to own a trowel or seen an Indiania Jones film make a claim in a TH-cam video and are seen to weigh in at the same weight category as world acclaimed experts in the field like Finkenstein and others. It is obvious that evangelicals (to cite the worst culprits amidst these factions) have a vested interest and using absolutely historically laughable arguments and methods attempt to bring disunity and confusion in the field. They ought to learn to leave their luggage at the door. Study history for the sake of learning. Don't try to project ideology on the excavation. They're barely one level above the likes of Ron Wyatt. What they are doing is not history. It is Revisionism.
I believe the targeted erosion of faith in science by Evangelical apologists is one of the most dangerous challenges facing America today. It continues to have devastating consequences that I can't help but think will hold progress back for decades.
@nilssturman5258 You only see what sneaky-ogia wants you to see. This was a casual conversation. Michael has an entire professionally made video series on the exodus where he cites all of his sources. Will sneaky-ogia touch that series - no.
@jamiehudson3661 Of course you like to stick with apologists who start with their conclusion and work backwards, don't you Jamie troll? ----------------------------‐---------------------------- *Archaeological data* *In many cases, the Bible’s “history” is not only not confirmed by the archaeological record, but actually disproved!* Here are a couple of examples. Anachronisms (see Stories for more), such as the mention of camels, trade routes, even kings and political states belie many of the Bible’s “histories.” They are rather from the author’s own time period and not the time period suggested in the narrative setting. The mention of Abraham’s meeting with the Philistine king of Gerar in Genesis 26 is an anachronism. *There were no Philistines, thus no Philistine king, nor a Gerar in the 18th c. BC, the narrative’s setting.* These elements were projected into the archaic past by an 8th c. BC author who was familiar with these historical things. Likewise, stories about Jacob and Israel, and Jacob and Laban are really stories describing the historical relationships between Israel and Edom, and Israel and Aram in the 9th and 8th centuries BC. We will look at these this month. *All of the place names mentioned in the exodus show no archaeological settlements in the time period implied by the narrative, and this is especially true of Kadesh-barnea where supposedly a troop of 600,000 male Israelites with their wives, daughters, livestock remained for 38 years!* Yet there are archaeological records of settlements in the Sinai peninsula during the 7th century BC. We’re not claiming that the exodus happened in the 7th c., but rather it was put to pen then, and the authors used places and towns that they were familiar with to shape the story! *The military conquest and extermination of the indigenous of the land of Canaan by Joshua, purported to happen in the 13th century BC according to biblical chronology, is also refuted by the archaeological record.* Numbers 20:14-20 relates how the Israelites asked the king of Edom to pass through their territory in order to access a route to the land of Canaan. Yet we know from extra-biblical sources, primarily Assyrian records, that Edom only achieved statehood in the 7th century BC. *Archaeologist William Dever puts it this way: “there cannot have been a king of Edom to have denied the Israelites access, since Edom did not achieve any kind of statehood until the 7th century BC” (Who Were the Early Israelites?, 28)* -ditto for the biblical narrative’s mention of the king of Arad (21:1), the king of the Amorites (21:21; Hesbon in the Deuteronomic tradition), the king of Moab (21:26), and the king of Bashan (21:33). They are all projections of the political realities of the 8th and 7th centuries BC! *The wilderness narratives also claim that Hesbon and its environs were destroyed by the Israelites, but the archaeological record indicates no destructive layer in the centuries around the date implied by the biblical narrative, and no indication that Hesbon and its environs were even settled. There are no remains whatsoever.* The archaeological record at Arad and Hormah also tell the same story. *To cite William Dever again: “there are no Late Bronze Canaanite cities to be found anywhere in the northern Negev. . . so the Israelites could hardly have battled the native inhabitants of the land there” (30). The conquest of the Negev is a complete fabrication!* Again, the Israelites did battle or conquer these peoples or territories at a much later date, but that historical data was projected into the past as a means to legitimate the conquest. In reference to the cities Hazor, Lachish, and Megiddo, which Joshua allegedly destroyed, archaeologist Finkelstein writes: The kings of each of these four cities-Hazor, Aphek, Lachish, and Megiddo-are reported to have been defeated by the Israelites under Joshua. *But the archaeological evidence shows that the destruction of those cities took place over a span of more than a century. The possible causes include invasion, social breakdown, and civil strife. No single military force did it, and certainly not in one military campaign* . . . . Thus there is no reason to suppose that the burning of Hazor by hostile forces, for example, never took place. But what was in actuality a chaotic series of upheavals caused by many different factors and carried out by many different groups became-centuries later-a brilliantly crafted saga of territorial conquest under God’s blessing and direct command (The Bible Unearthed, 90-94). These are merely some examples of the textual and archaeological data that have lead biblical scholars to conclude that the biblical writers were not writing history. There are literally 100s, maybe 1000s more examples. What do you think? Does the data support this post’s claim? How would you analyze these data? Obviously this same data could be used to demonstrate that the Bible is not the word of (a) God. Certainly I’m interested in how, when, and why this tradition emerged and why it’s perpetuated. But the biblical texts themselves largely refute this. *"How do we know that the biblical writers were* ***not*** *writing history?"* -- by Dr Steven DiMattei
@jamiehudson3661 ...bro he can't even hide one of the biggest tells that someone is lying. He can't even look straight into the camera for more than a few seconds at a time. Hell, for most of this video, I actually thought he was watching tennis matches!
They have removed their consciences effectively through religion. They seem to operate in their own little world, where their motives are so pure, and they are critically unaware of themselves, no self awareness at all.
I have yet to see any apologist explain how Egypt didn't almost instantly collapse after having lost all of their firstborn, most of their population (which was apparently well over half Hebrew slaves who left no record of their existence), most/all of their livestock and crops, all of the aquatic animals in the Nile (or at least those who couldn't breathe blood), their entire army, and their god-king Nameless the Whateverth, all within the span of a single fortnight. Or how they instead remained the major socio-economic and military force in the region for literal millennia after all of that allegedly happened. And this is without factoring in that they had apparently picked a fight with the real god of the universe and lost, but not only didn't convert to the religion of the god that kicked their gods' behinds, but still bounced back to being way stronger than Israel by every rational metric until *maybe* recently.
@thetexasliberal283 and hid the fact they lost their army, their king and their food supply from the rest of the ancient near east. The illuminati has nothing in the ancient Egyptians. /s
@@thetexasliberal283 That was the part that blew my mind. I was willing to accept a drastically scaled down version of events that got mythologized later. Perhaps a few hundred or a few thousand slaves managed to revolt and fled. But when I realized they would have been running from Egypt -- to Egyptian controlled territoties that was one minimal hypothesis too far.
I don't understand how apologists think arguing rhat the Bible is basically mythology in Exodus helps thier case to argue for a historical Exodus. If you're arguing...."Well, this stuff is idealized, you can't take it literally"....then how do you take the account as historical if it's already making up something mundane as numbers, let alone miracles? If the numbers are wildly off, then how can you argue for the veracity of the rest? Micheal seems to be arguing that the Illiad is historical despite the details not quite matching up
That video is why I support your channel. Particularly the last section discussing the desensitization of genocide. Brilliant analysis, with a lot of "aha!" moments for me.
I find it interesting that he compared the ancient Canaanites as being despicable for infant sacrifice, taking people as slaves, mass slaughter of their enemies ...... sounds a lot like what God commands the Israelites to do to others, so if the Canaanites were despicable so were the Israelites.
Yes... he completely ignored the time when a "Righteous" man was rewarded for sacrificing his daughter... The bible contradicts their own representation of their god.
The apologetic argument that “archaeology has never contradicted the truth of the Bible” is not only _a_ misleading argument, but _the most_ misleading of them all.
Several viewers have noticed and pointed out that I made a mistake in the video regarding the dating of the Amarna Letters. @00:34:45 I mistakenly said that the archive was from the 13th century, when I meant to say, the “1300s,” which is rather the 14th century BCE. This clearly does not work in favour of my point about the absence of any epigraphic evidence for a mass-Exodus of thousands of people out of Egypt and into Canaan in the 13th century. However, I had also neglected to mention that in the Ugarit archive we possess high numbers of correspondences between the rulers of this Phoenician city and their Egyptian overlords from as late as 1180, when the city was destroyed by the Sea Peoples. Significantly, there is also no mention in these records of any migrating, conquering horde of Semites beating a path of destruction through Canaan from Egypt. While I made a careless error in the narration of the video, I think the overall point still stands: whether the size of the Israelite migration is 2 million, 200,000, or 25,000 people, there remains no knowledge of this immense human displacement from any third-party source anywhere. Whether apologists want to situate the Exodus in the 15th, 13th, or any other century, no one else on earth seems to have noticed that it happened, when it supposedly did. This is a minor point, especially compared to the volumes of additional evidence Dr. Josh and I supplied in this video to show rather forcefully that the Conquest of Canaan did not happen. I fully expect Michael in whatever response he offers to hyper-fixate on this small error, and to miss the rest of an otherwise devastating case against his absurdly positivistic view of the biblical narratives.
Ugarit was located far away from Canaan (more precisely, in Syria). So, assuming there was an Exodus, I would find expectable that the Ugaritians did not make reference to this event since there would have been probably no encounters between the two peoples when the Israelites were conquering Canaan and not Syria. Update: I have recently noticed that Ugarit in the 13th century BC was under the control of the Hittite empire, not the Egyptian one. And there were also no "high numbers of correspondences" between Ugaritians and Egyptians at this period, contrary to what you've claimed. This means that your argument againts the historicity of IP's moderate-scale Exodus in the 13th century BC is entirely wrong.
You made multiple careless errors. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence and arguments from silence . Negative evidence is not evidence at all Historians are already aware that we have probably lost the majority of ancient documentation. So no explicit mention of an exodus in other sources does not lead to the conclusion that it didn't happen Try responding to I.P and Dr Falk.
@@DrKippDavis Ok, here there are some additional errors and flaws: 1) claimed that Heshbon was not occupied during the Late Bronze Age. However, according to Øystein S. LaBianca and Bethany Walker, the excavations at Tel Hisban found remains from the Late Bronze period, but intensive reuse of the site by later occupants resulted in most remains from that period being found in secondary deposits. 2) also claimed that Dibon was unoccupied at that time as well. However, the egyptologist Kenneth Kitchen has noted that a reference to Dibon seems to appear in a Ramesside itinerary, which suggests that the town did exist during the 13th century BC. 3) Claimed that the Late Bronze Age settlement at Jericho reported by Nigro lasted until the Iron Age (55:00), when Nigro never says such a thing. Rather, Nigro writes that the evidence for this settlement ends at some point in the 13th century BC and that there is no evidence that the site was reoccupied again until the 11th century BC (indicating a gap in the occupational history of the site). 4) Acknowledged that Hazor has evidence of a 13th century BC destruction, but did not provide any evidence against an Israelite conquest of the city other than mentioning Zuckerman's hypothesis that the destruction might have been caused by an internal civil war. Did not seem to note Amnon Ben-Tor's main objection against this hypothesis: If the city was destroyed by its local inhabit- ants, how does one explain the fact that Hazor was deserted and remained uninhabited for a period of approximately 200 years after its destruction? The local population still had houses (which stood undestroyed), land and families to support. If they won the battle, why leave town? You can find more objections to Zuckerman in Ben-Tor's article "Who destroyed Canaanite Hazor", available online.
"If the evidence contradicts the story, I'll just claim that the story doesn't mean what the story says. That way I can tell myself that the story happened by telling myself that the story didn't happen."
@@ElizabethMcCormick-s2n that's how michael jones argue. it is like even if you are lying about the numbers or details of a departure, he will just cherrypick and focus on the evidence of the departure and will find tons of philosophical mumbo jumbo garbage to lessen the impact of the lies and/or inaccuracies in the details of it. his fave weapon? CONTEXTUAL INTERPRETATION.
His argument is just that such an interpretation is not needed. Given the fact it just can not be true due to it contradicting other stuff the Bible says and archeology, why assume the false interpretation?
There is "overwhelming support" as long as by "overwhelming support" you mean they wrote about it in the bible. InspiringIdiocy starts with the bible and works backwards trying stretch evidence to make it fit.
That Orc thing really made me mad. First of all, even Tolkien wrote about how he didn’t like his portrayal of the orcs as completely irredeemable. He said he thought everyone had the potential to be redeemed. Then he goes on to say “if a modern atheist saw the canaanites sacrificing infants whose side would they be on?” Still not the Israelites side! Oh gee the Canaanite’s were sacrificing _some_ of their babies, so your solution is to kill _all_ of the babies? And then he goes on to say “the canaanites would burn whole cities to the ground and kill men, women, and children to keep alive for themselves. They were pure evil.” THATS WHAT GOD TOLD THE ISREALITES TO DO. He tells them that, almost word for word. Kill the men, women, and children but keep the virgin girls alive as slaves. Oh my god.
Been hearing about this project for a while, and have been looking forward to it. And yeah, I love the interplay between Dr. Kill & Dr. Josh. Those two are just too much fun to watch. 😁🤣
My PhD is in medieval history. I was floored to hear the apologists proclaim these ancient fortified sites had only soldiers during their destruction. Obviously my expertise isn't in the ancient period, but during the middle ages civilians always flooded into fortified locations during an invasion and it would have been no different for the ancient period, as Kip Davis rightly points out.
If the invading army didn’t come near them, how did people know to flee to the fortified locations? I’m thinking for example of people to the west of the fortress while the invaders come from the east.
Paul, thank you for providing a space for content experts to discuss at length. Your role as extremely well informed facilitator is very much appreciated. Many thanks to you and your guest scholars.
The _dehumanization_ really hit me super hard, because I had, for a period of quite a few months, pivoted from typical (debunking) evangelical content to (debunking) creationist content, where they are much more focused on poking holes in evolution, or calling "evolutionists" OUT for supposedly dehumanizing us. I tricked myself into thinking religious people were above routinely, ritualistically dehumanizing themselves and others. Disgusting infectious thought processes...
1:24:57 - I think Tolkien himself might have had some reservations about that considering he struggled with the idea of orcs being inherently evil, as it would conflict with his Catholic worldview.
Funny how half of the online apologists are insulted by Satan's Guide implying apologists are keeping secrets from their flock, while the other half is on a damage control tirade trying to minimize our trust in archeology and make us forget parts of the Bible
@@ashishhembrom3905what does that have to do with the comment? I they didn't say the bible isn't available, they are saying apologists are trying to manipulate what and how people interpret of it.
@@ashishhembrom3905 It's true that the Bible being in Latin/Greek was an effective way to maintain exclusive authority over interpreting the text to the illiterate common people, but that doesn't mean that it's the only way of maintaining that authority, and it certainly doesn't stop people from trying even today. (besides, calling it the "fullest form" when a lot of books have been excluded from the Canon on a mostly arbitrary threshold is a bold claim, but that's besides the point that I'd like to focus on). And to the point that I do want to argue, I can give a few more specific examples to build some grounding: Christians tend to not pay attention to what the Bible actually says, because most of it is boring and doesn't really make sense on its own. That's why a lot of people just search for the parts that support their preconceived notions, or better yet, have some pastor do that for them and interpret and preach those select parts. With this, it becomes natural to have blind spots to parts of the Bible that would contradict the doctrine that is built on it, and the pastor can exact authority by asserting how a passage is to be interpreted and choosing which parts are relevant in the first place. A direct example would be someone saying that a part is not wrong, but just metaphorical (like the literal boatloads of nonsense science in the book), or concluding in which way and how far an anecdotal story is meant to be generalized as a life lesson. (like mixed fabrics or calling people bald only being a problem in one case but not in general, while one example of a man and a woman being unified must mean that all alternative means of union are invalid) So with the mechanisms explained of how someone can still hold authority over the text after Luther translated it, it should also become more easy to understand how exactly the given apologists paint a picture of the slaughter in Jericho that is different than what is described in the text itself.
I love that IP constantly just posions the well. The way he shat on the entire field of archaeology simply because he is too dense to understand the research is very on brand for him.
It just shows like Kip you’re not understanding the arguments for the Bible. But if you believe any lie Kip is saying you’re clearly not really listening or thinking.
@@kennethanderson8770 What an absolutely nothing comment. No substance whatsoever. Some homework for you to help you write a more substantial comment next time: 1. What arguments for the bible are being misunderstood? How are they being misunderstood? 2. Does this misunderstanding defeat the point the comment is making? How so? 3. What specific lies has Kip told? How can you tell? Without fleshing out your comments to at least this extent, your comment can't amount to anything more than an indignant "nuh uh!!!". Please do better.
@@fieldrequired283 if you have seen kips arguments looked into most scholars views and watched the rebuttal video by inspiring philosophy all your questions are answered. So in pointing you to reliable scholarship my argument is defended and your questions are answered. Kip has proven himself unreliable just like paulogia. Sorry cannot take unreliable Fringe people seriously.
@@kennethanderson8770 I was instructing you on how to compose a substantial, interesting, or informative comment. This new comment is also completely vacuous. You've gone from "nuh uh!" To "nuh uh! i saw a video that said you were wrong!". If you have a case, then make it. If you learned something from watching a response video, present that information. These nothing comments are a waste of time.
@@kennethanderson8770 Your argument isn’t defended yet. You haven’t even attempted to use anything from that rebuttal video here to defend it. Also, do you have anything besides that video? You’re just throwing out a video that you didn’t even link at someone and then trying to run away with the “you aren’t worth my precious time and energy” attitude. I’ve been seeing A LOT of people doing that for Paul, Holy Koolaid, and others and it’s straight-up a BAD MOVE to make because you’re coming off as desperate and unwilling to engage in a conversation- which is the real waste of everyone’s time, not the comment you’re sticking your tongue out at.
Actually doesnt stop a person from being competent. However, this guy isnt even competent at apologetics. There are really brilliant people that are (were) self educated in many fields.
@@rimmersbryggeri It's true that some people go one to get themselves really well informed on a topic through self study. The issue is that while that tiny percentage of people exist, the average person who absorbs information with no domain knowledge ends up a flat earther. I learned quickly, while working in research, that I had the delusion I could just read papers outside of my field (say psychology for instance) and thankfully friends with that domain knowledge humbled me by showing how easy it was to misconstrue the relevance of a finding when you are looking at it raw.
There is a general attack on faith in scientific rigor. The assumption is that science can't answer all questions so an ignorant person's opinion is as valid as an expert's opinion. We saw a lot of that during the pandemic. When a scientist discovers something revolutionary some news outlet will report "Scientists baffled!" Nevermind that the scientist devoted his life to making this type of discovery. No one ever reports "Theists baffled!"
@@rimmersbryggeri How is he not competent in apologetics? Have you watched his professionally made series on the exodus in which he cited the experts in these fields who show that there is evidence for the exodus.
At the end of the video, Gavin Ortlund says he got very emotional when reading about the horrors of the Canaanites sacrificing babies to their gods. But as far as I have been able to figure out, there is no archaeological evidence from that time period of this practice going on in Canaan. In his own video he points to evidence of ritual burials of the charred remains of infants in urns or "tophets" found in the Carthage, which was founded by the Phoenicians, descendants of Canaanites. But the problem is that Carthage is more than 1,500 miles away from Canaan and was founded 400-500 years after the claimed conquest of Canaan occurred. Thus Gavin is bending backwards so far he can see his own backside to cast the Canaanites as so implacably evil there was no alternative but to destroy their civilization, even as he greatly plays down the genocidal language the Bible uses to describe that destruction, claiming it was just the hyperbolic language typical of ancient histories from that time. He's right, in that ancient histories often greatly exaggerate the exploits of the heroes -- the histories of the early Roman period do the same thing -- but those same histories also often greatly exaggerate the wickedness of the bad guys, for obvious reasons. So Gavin his trying to have it both ways -- playing down Biblical accounts of slaughter and destruction by the Israelites while playing up the wickedness of the Canaanites to the point of getting choked up about it in the video. For someone who prides himself as being studied, reasonable, thoughtful, and honest, this reflects very poorly on him.
This failing of the story in the Bible was one of the bigger reasons I started taking a deeper look at my beliefs and Christianity in general. Thanks for putting this together!
*_Set Up For Failure_** ?* Why did the Biblical God, choose the exact same flawed & failed methods to spread his message, as all of the other countless religions & Gods that humanity has believed in throughout history ? _(personal testimony and the written & spoken words of men that "claim" to speak for God)_
26:20 I think people view InspiringIdiocy's content do ZERO fact checking beyond watching this video. He makes them feel less stupid for believing in fables with ZERO evidence. They don't want to look elsewhere or they may find out he is wrong and then they are back to feeling stupid.
Hello Paul, please edit the video to include the following correction At minutes 34-35 they claim that an Exodus comprising some 20.000 people could not have taken place because if so this event would have been mentioned in the Amarna letters, which they seem to erroneously date to the 13th century BC, when in fact they date to a century earlier (which makes them too early to have made any reference to the Exodus-Conquest event as postulated by IP).
I'd watch hours of Drs. Kipp Davis and Joshua Bowen teaching the historical consensus. They're the coolest Ancient Near East duo this side of the Nile! I've always enjoyed their responses to apologists as well. Thank you for the great content!
When apologists struggle to justify the Bible, they turn their backs on faith to rely on pseudoscience and their “interpretation” of scripture. Apparently they think believing by faith isn’t a good enough justification to be a Christian. I remember being so arrogant about how much faith I had.
27:27 Can someone please explain how you could possibly think "eleph" in Numbers means anything other than "thousand"? It's called the book of Numbers for a reason! During a census, results of tribes are summed together like we would expect for literal population counts. (Eg. Numbers 1.45-46) Not as shorthand for 'military group' or 'clan'.
It could be a figure of speech akin to "dozens and dozens" meaning "a largish number but not necessarily evenly divided by 12". But I do agree that the census-taking does make such a meaning less likely. Though I have no idea how accurate a bronze age census would theoretically be
I couldn't enjoy this video until I put the phone down and just listened on headphones. That tie was just too iridescent and distracting. It visually overwhelms the whole piece! Thanks for doing this, guys. All three of you do a great job ... as usual
*The Dishonest Christian ;* Always willing to give the automatic _"benefit of the doubt",_ to their preferred Christian beliefs. While at the same time refusing to apply the same methods, they use for finding truth in Christianity, to any other religion.
By this logic, doesn’t this mean all atheists are dishonest for presuming a form of naturalism/physicalist and automatically giving the benefit of the doubt to this worldview while dismissing all ideas of the spiritual/immaterial? I mean, if you want to call everyone dishonest, this is one great way to do so! :P
@@theol64 *_Oh, really_** ?* So they accept hearsay testimony, for miracle claims from other religions, do they ? lol To assert that "evangelicals" use the _exact same methods_ they use for Christianity, when investigating other religious claims, is utter non sense. *Evangelicals, **_are not Biblical scholars_** .* As evidenced by the thousands of versions of Christianity that disagree on almost everything in the Bible. _Not the same for Biblical scholars._
@moodyrick8503 Mmmm hmmm. So you hold that there is no fundamental understanding that makes distinction? OK. Drink from every stream no matter what. Not me.
I think it's funny the way apologists have to specify that infant sacrifice to God is wrong rather than just human sacrifice to God. I guess that's one additional benefit of being secularly minded
Sadly, Kipp and Josh have no demonstrable credentials in the relevant field of video game criticism. There is no indication that either has played, let alone completed Orcs Must Die! 1, 2, or 3. Based on this video, I'm not sure whether they are even aware of the recently announced Orcs Must Die! Deathtrap. Look, I want to sin as much as the next guy, but that is hardly an excuse to ignore mainstream scholarship from the likes of IGN or GameInformer. I'm hoping that Paulogia raises his standards in future videos.
7:18 I wonder if the point that Josh just made doesn’t point to the need for an “apologia to English” dictionary. “When apologists say their idea is backed by ‘overwhelming evidence’, what they mean is ‘a case which occasionally flirts with plausibility at the edges’.” When apologists say, “This gives us a thoroughly credible case,” what they mean is, “admittedly, no serious person takes this idea seriously, but if the underlying question makes you really anxious, this scabby old rag could serve a makeshift security blanket for you.” When an apologist says, “even atheists must admit this is at least possible,” what they mean is, “my Ph D is in physiognomy and I make my living leeching off your desperation.”
It is incredible how the "that's sin" people, need to lie, make assumptions, dismiss evidence... It is just incredible to see them fart their way to arrive at conclusions they already have.
@inspiringphilosophy reminds me of myself as a young student of philosophy and biblical studies, too ignorant of scholarship to have any idea how arrogant I sound and clueless about how little I actually know about anything compared to scholars who dedicate their lives to just a handful of topics. Humility is a virtue.
"I want to quote an eminent scholar, "When you are consistently getting the scholarship wrong this should disqualify your participation from the discussion'" - Dr. David Falk
Isn't that the professional Christian excusigist Michael brought to his channel? One of those who start with the conclusion that the Bible is true and then work backward to build a case that tries to explain away the evidence we have?
@@vejekeI suggest watching IPs video where he basically buried paul and his crew of misfits. He brought on an expert in the field, not an apologist. I also suggest you formulate better arguments if you want anyone to take you seriously.
I never could get behind the "He gave life and therefor he can take it away." Like, even if I grant that he gave humans existence, I fundamentally disagree that just because someone made humans that means they have the right to kill them as they see fit. "If you created life, wouldn't it be your right to do whatever you want with it?" No??? Causing suffering and death doesn't suddenly become okay because it's done by the person that made them
@@shinobi-no-buenoSure. Kipps comments are littered throughout this youtube comment space and hes quite active. A good example would be his interaction with the channel "Testify". Go back about 6 or so months and look at the treasure trove of dishonesty when he is confronted about the NT in the comment sections.
InspiringIdiocy is sooooooo condescending and annoying. He acts like he holds the intellectual high ground while he is the one believing in magic with ZERO evidence other than his slavery endorsing book.
He offers a bunch of evidence, but all you can do is insult while you refuse to actually look at his arguments honestly and only watch refutations to them by dishonest people like the ones in this video 😂
@@User81981 Lol InspiringIdiocy is the dishonest one. The people in this video are ACTUAL biblical scholars doing ACTUAL work in the field. People who have been educated, doing this research, and teaching others for YEARS. They believe in evidence and following it to truth rather than starting with bible magic and trying to twist misconceptions of science to make it fit with a biblical model. It's called confirmation bias and it is the EXACT opposite of how we are supposed to do science.
Michael: “Humans are most similar to the Orcs in Lord of the Rings in terms of the races” Does… does Michael not know that there are humans in Lord of the Rings?
His point is that the humans in Lord of the Rings (I’m assuming he’s referring to Aragorn’s ilk, Boromir, etc.) act better or are more noble than humans here. Therefore, we most resemble Orcs.
Having grown up LDS (Mormon), it’s fascinating to hear these Bible “experts” try to “prove” something that doesn’t have any good evidence of existing. They use the same arguments you would hear people who try to prove the Book of Mormon through archaeology. It would be funny to hear their thoughts of Book of Mormon archaeology and be forced to deny the same arguments they have for Biblical events that didn’t exist either.
These guys are so dishonest and it’s hard for me to believe at this point they don’t realize it. The Bible is literal whenever they want it to be, unless it’s clear that the literal reading is wrong. Then you have to take into account cultural relevance, or it’s figurative. There is no key to tell you what is literal, what is cultural, and what is figurative. It’s just based on the argument that is attempting to be made.
About 900 years ago, near what is now York, Pennsylvania, there was a highly advanced and mechanized civilization which dominated the region. A massive earthquake devastated the area and wiped away all traces of their existence…which is proven by the complete lack of evidence we find for them today!
Just like Noah's Ark InspiringIdiocy pulls "What if" statements directly from his ass with ZERO support in order to answer the GLARING issues with their magical mythic worldview.
I used to be bothered by the conquest of Canaan until I learned that in addition to sacrificing children, the Cananites wore bow ties. The command to “ destroy them totally,” makes so much more sense in that context.
Apologists stack plausibility upon plausibility to excuse conflicting data, whereas scholars attempt to weigh all the evidence they are aware of. Mike and Gavin are both scholarly literate enough to assuage the concerns of 99% of their audience by citing scholarship, but without ever really addressing the underlying issues. What really irked me with Gavin’s “cities don’t have civilians” argument is that for it to work, the ANE warfare would have to be different from warfare everywhere else in recorded history. People in the countryside fled for the safety of walls. Jericho and other walled cities would have absolutely had women and children inside, all of which were ritually slaughtered (harem) when the city fell.
It is funny how they preach that we shouldn't take these texts literally, that we have to understand the cultural context. But this cultural context can't ever be one in which the people wrote fable and myths about themselves like tons of contemporary cultures and that the exodus is one of them. If they claim to be so comfortable with looking at the bible with a contextual eye, then why are they so against the possibility of it being an unreliable myth.
Historically it's a near universal in a siege situation that those living in the area would move into the city or fortress before it became besieged (if possible) not those inside moving away. That's because, historically, the safest place for civilians in a siege situation was inside the besieged location, where they had places to hide, soldiers protecting the location and other advantages. Outside the siege they were at the mercy of the attackers or any groups of bandits that would have been in an area suddenly denuded of its protection.
Love how apologists expose themselves as pompous peddlers: "Inspiring Philosophy" and "Truth Unites" are labels implying great data, understanding and excellent analysis combined with superb communication: all of which are lacking, especially when you folks such as Kipp, Josh and Paul apply their informed and practiced minds on the presentation Great work by good eggs. Thanks folks
...AND, Remember -- when FundieXtians go looking for 'Justifications' to "HATE The Other in the Name of god's PERFECT' Love", they Invariably quote the OT...
I like to remind them of the bit where Jesus supposedly said he didn't come to change the law, but to reinforce it. It's wild to me how many "Christians" disregard the tenets of Christianity. Very much a "rules for thee and not for me" mentality.
Don't forget that the ten commandments which they love so much but don't even seem to realize that there are three different versions of, come from the Old testament as well. Somehow that's different because they said so.
We do have a record of a group of "Canaanites" leaving Egypt and settling in Palestine. 1573BCE, the Hyksos, as they were called, went on to establish the city that would become Jerusalem. But, this doesn't help the biblical narrative. Rather than escaping, they were invaders who the Egyptians drove out. And, they were Baal worshippers. If you accept that the bible misrepresents everything we actually have evidence for, it's not difficult to see how the folk memory of this could be woven into the myths that were written down in the 7th century BCE.
I think you are filling in the blanks a bit there. There isn't any hieroglyph that says that people left Egypt and founded Jerusalem. That wouldn't make any sense anyway since Jerusalem pre-existed the Jewish takeover of the city.
Excellent video, and thank you for calling out the two non-archaeologists on their patronising and uninformed comments on archaeology. A little more introspection, humility, and due respect for scholarly opinion from Christian apologists would not go astray.
To those asking why I haven't responded to IP's response to this. This is why, I knew this was coming... th-cam.com/video/GFhGznpzT7M/w-d-xo.html
Can you respond to “no Jesus was not a failed prophet”
One thing that drives me crazy about this style of apologetics is that they're always coming up with reasons that the Bible doesn't actually say what it clearly says, but when it says to hate the same people they hate, that's when it means exactly what it says, no nuance necessary.
It says and is what you want it to say and be. If there is trouble... then "God is mysterious'
@@joe5959 I can't tell which side you're on so I don't know which argument you think you're making, but you're basically making my point for me. There is zero consensus regarding what you take literally and what's metaphorical, there's no criteria which can be agreed upon across the board, so when apologists get their hands on it, every single segment gets judged based on whatever point they want to make in that moment, to the point that two passages which are in the same paragraph will have different rules applied to them, not because of any scholarly textual criticism, but to line up with presuppositions. It's a subjective nebulous mess, and the fans keep selling it like a clear and perfect guide to life.
@joe5959 painfully wrong. Scholars aren't just assuming their own positions, they're approaching the topic with tools and methods *demonstrated to work. This is not the same thing that religious experts do, especially when looking at their own text.
@@joe5959 except that there's nothing "objective" about that, either (I wonder what your definition of subjective vs objective is, because every rabbi is a subject FWIW). You can make arguments that it's a more reasonable method than presuppositionalism, but you can't say that it's any less subjective or personal or philosophical. You can make the case that a randomly selected rabbi may have caused less harm in the world as a result of their religious beliefs than a randomly selected hate preacher, but that speaks to the individuals, it doesn't necessarily mean that the rabbi has a more "objective" outlook, it just means he's less apt to allow his religion to guide him to do harm.
That's actually not even true; sometimes it is, but half the time they do the exact same thing with people they hate too: they just have a prejudice to begin with, and then find some vague justification for it in the Bible that's maybe there if you squint.
So, this video was one of the funnest projects I have been priveledged to collaborate on. It's such an honour and joy to work with such exacting professionals like Paul and Josh.
This video is everything I hoped it would be, and more.
And it shows! Thanks guys, this was great 👍
Thank you so much for your work!
I checked and IP is planning to respond so maybe you guys need to do a sequel
@@chrishaynes599 😂 then can try, IP will keep refuting their nonsense
@@User81981 such a powerful comment I’m at a loss for words
This was one of the more powerful videos I feel like I have participated in. Thank you for all of your had work Paulogia and Kipp.
My favorite part of the video was the part you and Dr Kipp laughed about being embarrassed if you wrote the article about the wall. Ancient OSHA. It seemed like a genuine reactionary critique between two experts that I could only appreciate as a layman spectator.
@@DigitalHammurabi Oh, yes, you are so powerfully biased. Lol
@jamiehudson3661 not like the Biblical apologists...they have no reason to ignore any evidence that goes against their narrative. /s
@@jamiehudson3661 how so?
You and Kipp are both fantastic on these topics, thanks for your work!
Paulogia's editing makes the responses of Kipp and Josh so much cleaner. Live streams are great, but this is a treat.
I don't like live streams much. Almost always too many interruptions and pauses which make me feel like my time is being wasted. Even worse when you end up with 4 people or more talking over each other. AronRa and his dogs...AHHH!
Shorter ones are OK, but I just prefer an on topic, concise discussion.
@@Cheepchipsablethey need to do pauses because that’s how TH-cam does things whether we like them or not
IP will probably make a 4 hour long livestreamed response as usual
@@adamcosper3308 Paulogia’s editing has always been exemplary.
1:20:02 *"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities"* ― Voltaire
Indeed. Even Gavin looked increasingly appalled at what Michael was saying despite pretending to be in agreement. You can see the wheels of cognitive dissonance turn in real time. On some level, he knows this is really messed up, but he gives it a free pass because, "God."
When you begin your argument from the position that a Celestial Dictator approves of all atrocities because He's just moving souls around a sandbox, you can justify any atrocity... as long as you're not the one that was affected.
Thank you for doing this video. The first time I came into contact with this part of the bible I was absolutely horrified, and the worst part for me was that the isrealites were portrayed as the "good guys". It didn't exactly help that the newborn christian sitting before me kept blankly saying that if god commanded it then it must be right and good. It's terrifying what religion can do to people.
“With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil - that takes religion.”
- Steven Weinberg
They think of themselves as morally superior with that argument, not realizing how morally bankrupt it is.
Arguing that the Bible is historically accurate if you assume it’s not literally true whenever the evidence disagrees is a decision.
Well put.
*delusion
Buddy you do know that the bible is a collection of books and not every books ir word has to be literal or not literal?
@@Jk-ow8ny Yes, buddy. I am fully aware of that. But we’re talking about this happening within the same book, as if the conquest of Canaan is historically accurate as long as you ignore all the parts that are provably false, highly doubtful, or morally problematic; and just assume that the rest is true without evidence. And we’re not talking about a few words not being literally true, but important parts of the story; like the population size and what happened.
The way analyzing history SHOULD work is that we only trust the parts that can be confirmed. But these guys are doing the opposite: Believing all the parts that have no evidence and only distrusting the parts that have evidence or don’t fit their preferred narrative. Because…if they only trusted the parts that have evidence, they’d have to throw the whole thing out.
@@DoctorBiobrain well we can have extrinsic evidence this happened because we believe in Jesus
I find it amazing that these apologists could be so ignorant (or desperate) as to suggest that, in the event of a siege, townspeople would _leave the protection of the walls_ and wait out the siege in the countryside. What do they think the purpose of city walls are? Townspeople stay _inside_ the walls during a siege where they have stockpiles of food and won't be harassed by the foraging parties and looters of the army they're hiding behind the walls from in the first place.
Cope harder, apologists.
No, no. You see, the Israelite armies were totally different. If you were outside the city walls, they would actually pack and deliver your groceries right to you.
@@DrKippDavis Awesome! If Covid-19 would have hit back then, they would have home food delivery already set up. 😊
@discontinuedmodel232 They would have been so profitable, that actually conquering Canaan would have become an afterthought.
@@DrKippDavis good point Dr. Kipp!
The irony here is that there is a popular quote in un the Bible that should have given them a hint (Proverbs 18:10)
The "God is just moving people from one place to another" gets even worse, if you consider that these non-Chosen people that worshiped other gods wouldn't be moved to just any place, but to the very worst place imaginable.
O sometimes like to think god takes to heaven any innocent killed in these stories, and when they are like "what the hell with these guys following you??" God is like "yea yea dont remind me"
@@nikhtzatzi It's a nice thought. And I'm not disapproving of people imagining Gods nicer than the Bible and those preaching its words literally, tell us. As long as it's done in recognition that that isn't in the scripture.
I think a lot of us like to imagine better ways things could be, than ancient people imagined. And it's fun to think up variations on their stories that align better with our own morality.
We just have to be honest, and keep our eyes on the fact that this is what we'd imagine, and not fall into the trap so many others do. After all, almost every believer believes in a God that is how they imagine them to be, that sees things as they do, and considers them worthy of heaven. Even if they would consider most others that feel the same, to have it wrong.
In the end, the truth is we don't know. And feeling like it's not the way that it is currently taught, is itself an admission of that. Every thought on that, is the same as any hope and prayer: A wish. And as long as you cannot change anything with action, I think wishing is not a bad thing.
This topic is not just academic. People are still dying based on the idea that Jewish people have been given the right to push out “other” people from “their” land.
This. I probably wouldn't waste any of my time on religious nonsense (i.e. watching TH-cam videos) if it wasn't being used as an excuse to actively harm people.
Just to be more specific and stave off any disingenuous accusations of antisemitism, I'd say that people are still dying based on the idea that the kingdom now nation-state of Israel is justified in the extermination of "others" in the name of cultural purity.
Israel is a fascistic state, making blood and soil arguments with the aesthetic of millenia old religious propoganda. Israel is not "the Jews", and I won't even engage with the conflation so far as to let that be a description of their false pretense.
Very true! That was in the back of my mind throughout their discussion. The history of the Israelites in relation to Palestine has significant present-day ramifications.
I had that on my mind all through the video!
@@ziploc2000 apologists keep asking us why we “obsess” over their religion. We would LOVE to ignore theists, if they would only stop using their religions to harm people.
As someone who has academically studied archaeology and did not make the cut, I am constantly perplexed with the bad faith demonstrated in conversations such as these. Sure, there is "back and forth" in areas such as anglo-saxon, scandinavian, gaellic, slavic and other european fields, but nowhere else than in the field of "biblical archaeology", where people's feelings are so deeply invested, do we encounter such bad faith. Put simply, a couple of guys with credentials in philosophy and other unrelated fields who happen to own a trowel or seen an Indiania Jones film make a claim in a TH-cam video and are seen to weigh in at the same weight category as world acclaimed experts in the field like Finkenstein and others. It is obvious that evangelicals (to cite the worst culprits amidst these factions) have a vested interest and using absolutely historically laughable arguments and methods attempt to bring disunity and confusion in the field. They ought to learn to leave their luggage at the door. Study history for the sake of learning. Don't try to project ideology on the excavation. They're barely one level above the likes of Ron Wyatt. What they are doing is not history. It is Revisionism.
Devastating. Thank you.
I believe the targeted erosion of faith in science by Evangelical apologists is one of the most dangerous challenges facing America today. It continues to have devastating consequences that I can't help but think will hold progress back for decades.
@nilssturman5258 You only see what sneaky-ogia wants you to see. This was a casual conversation. Michael has an entire professionally made video series on the exodus where he cites all of his sources. Will sneaky-ogia touch that series - no.
@jamiehudson3661 Of course you like to stick with apologists who start with their conclusion and work backwards, don't you Jamie troll?
----------------------------‐----------------------------
*Archaeological data*
*In many cases, the Bible’s “history” is not only not confirmed by the archaeological record, but actually disproved!* Here are a couple of examples. Anachronisms (see Stories for more), such as the mention of camels, trade routes, even kings and political states belie many of the Bible’s “histories.” They are rather from the author’s own time period and not the time period suggested in the narrative setting. The mention of Abraham’s meeting with the Philistine king of Gerar in Genesis 26 is an anachronism. *There were no Philistines, thus no Philistine king, nor a Gerar in the 18th c. BC, the narrative’s setting.* These elements were projected into the archaic past by an 8th c. BC author who was familiar with these historical things. Likewise, stories about Jacob and Israel, and Jacob and Laban are really stories describing the historical relationships between Israel and Edom, and Israel and Aram in the 9th and 8th centuries BC. We will look at these this month.
*All of the place names mentioned in the exodus show no archaeological settlements in the time period implied by the narrative, and this is especially true of Kadesh-barnea where supposedly a troop of 600,000 male Israelites with their wives, daughters, livestock remained for 38 years!* Yet there are archaeological records of settlements in the Sinai peninsula during the 7th century BC. We’re not claiming that the exodus happened in the 7th c., but rather it was put to pen then, and the authors used places and towns that they were familiar with to shape the story! *The military conquest and extermination of the indigenous of the land of Canaan by Joshua, purported to happen in the 13th century BC according to biblical chronology, is also refuted by the archaeological record.*
Numbers 20:14-20 relates how the Israelites asked the king of Edom to pass through their territory in order to access a route to the land of Canaan. Yet we know from extra-biblical sources, primarily Assyrian records, that Edom only achieved statehood in the 7th century BC. *Archaeologist William Dever puts it this way: “there cannot have been a king of Edom to have denied the Israelites access, since Edom did not achieve any kind of statehood until the 7th century BC” (Who Were the Early Israelites?, 28)* -ditto for the biblical narrative’s mention of the king of Arad (21:1), the king of the Amorites (21:21; Hesbon in the Deuteronomic tradition), the king of Moab (21:26), and the king of Bashan (21:33). They are all projections of the political realities of the 8th and 7th centuries BC!
*The wilderness narratives also claim that Hesbon and its environs were destroyed by the Israelites, but the archaeological record indicates no destructive layer in the centuries around the date implied by the biblical narrative, and no indication that Hesbon and its environs were even settled. There are no remains whatsoever.* The archaeological record at Arad and Hormah also tell the same story. *To cite William Dever again: “there are no Late Bronze Canaanite cities to be found anywhere in the northern Negev. . . so the Israelites could hardly have battled the native inhabitants of the land there” (30). The conquest of the Negev is a complete fabrication!* Again, the Israelites did battle or conquer these peoples or territories at a much later date, but that historical data was projected into the past as a means to legitimate the conquest.
In reference to the cities Hazor, Lachish, and Megiddo, which Joshua allegedly destroyed, archaeologist Finkelstein writes:
The kings of each of these four cities-Hazor, Aphek, Lachish, and Megiddo-are reported to have been defeated by the Israelites under Joshua. *But the archaeological evidence shows that the destruction of those cities took place over a span of more than a century. The possible causes include invasion, social breakdown, and civil strife. No single military force did it, and certainly not in one military campaign* . . . . Thus there is no reason to suppose that the burning of Hazor by hostile forces, for example, never took place. But what was in actuality a chaotic series of upheavals caused by many different factors and carried out by many different groups became-centuries later-a brilliantly crafted saga of territorial conquest under God’s blessing and direct command (The Bible Unearthed, 90-94).
These are merely some examples of the textual and archaeological data that have lead biblical scholars to conclude that the biblical writers were not writing history. There are literally 100s, maybe 1000s more examples. What do you think? Does the data support this post’s claim? How would you analyze these data? Obviously this same data could be used to demonstrate that the Bible is not the word of (a) God. Certainly I’m interested in how, when, and why this tradition emerged and why it’s perpetuated. But the biblical texts themselves largely refute this.
*"How do we know that the biblical writers were* ***not*** *writing history?"* -- by Dr Steven DiMattei
@jamiehudson3661 ...bro he can't even hide one of the biggest tells that someone is lying.
He can't even look straight into the camera for more than a few seconds at a time.
Hell, for most of this video, I actually thought he was watching tennis matches!
the way they spoke about murder and war and genocide was genuinely so chilling
They have removed their consciences effectively through religion. They seem to operate in their own little world, where their motives are so pure, and they are critically unaware of themselves, no self awareness at all.
It wasn't murder! It was simply moving souls from one place to another. My gosh...
I have yet to see any apologist explain how Egypt didn't almost instantly collapse after having lost all of their firstborn, most of their population (which was apparently well over half Hebrew slaves who left no record of their existence), most/all of their livestock and crops, all of the aquatic animals in the Nile (or at least those who couldn't breathe blood), their entire army, and their god-king Nameless the Whateverth, all within the span of a single fortnight. Or how they instead remained the major socio-economic and military force in the region for literal millennia after all of that allegedly happened.
And this is without factoring in that they had apparently picked a fight with the real god of the universe and lost, but not only didn't convert to the religion of the god that kicked their gods' behinds, but still bounced back to being way stronger than Israel by every rational metric until *maybe* recently.
Hell, Egypt doesn't even seem to know who Yahweh is from thier records. If Yahweh was trying to make an impression on them he failed miserably
And somehow they still maintained power in Canaan during the entire time the exodus was supposed to have happened.
@thetexasliberal283 and hid the fact they lost their army, their king and their food supply from the rest of the ancient near east.
The illuminati has nothing in the ancient Egyptians. /s
Nicely put. Almost like it's all a power driven story by the writers...
@@thetexasliberal283 That was the part that blew my mind. I was willing to accept a drastically scaled down version of events that got mythologized later. Perhaps a few hundred or a few thousand slaves managed to revolt and fled. But when I realized they would have been running from Egypt -- to Egyptian controlled territoties that was one minimal hypothesis too far.
I don't understand how apologists think arguing rhat the Bible is basically mythology in Exodus helps thier case to argue for a historical Exodus.
If you're arguing...."Well, this stuff is idealized, you can't take it literally"....then how do you take the account as historical if it's already making up something mundane as numbers, let alone miracles? If the numbers are wildly off, then how can you argue for the veracity of the rest? Micheal seems to be arguing that the Illiad is historical despite the details not quite matching up
That video is why I support your channel. Particularly the last section discussing the desensitization of genocide. Brilliant analysis, with a lot of "aha!" moments for me.
Thank you so much!
which video
@@maxonmendel5757 That video which is attached to this comment. But you knew that...
@@lisaboban aaaa, did you share a link or something? or do you mean this video that we just watched?
@@maxonmendel5757 Maybe English is the second language here because it should be "This video" not "That video."
I find it interesting that he compared the ancient Canaanites as being despicable for infant sacrifice, taking people as slaves, mass slaughter of their enemies ...... sounds a lot like what God commands the Israelites to do to others, so if the Canaanites were despicable so were the Israelites.
Yes... he completely ignored the time when a "Righteous" man was rewarded for sacrificing his daughter... The bible contradicts their own representation of their god.
The apologetic argument that “archaeology has never contradicted the truth of the Bible” is not only _a_ misleading argument, but _the most_ misleading of them all.
especially when it’s reworded as having “overwhelming evidence”
It is one of the rare cases that they say a plain lie with a straight face. Oh, wait...
@@TaeyxBlackYes. It’s incredibly dishonest.
@@cemreomerayna463 Hey, it's not a lie if you don't know that is false because other people have been lying to you your entire life.
Falls in the same line as:
"My God is real!"
'Prove it'
"Prove he's not! See, you can't, therefore he is real! You just don't want to believe!"
The example of Rohan is so devastating. To extend it a little, the orcs even have their very real god and his prophet behind them
Several viewers have noticed and pointed out that I made a mistake in the video regarding the dating of the Amarna Letters. @00:34:45 I mistakenly said that the archive was from the 13th century, when I meant to say, the “1300s,” which is rather the 14th century BCE. This clearly does not work in favour of my point about the absence of any epigraphic evidence for a mass-Exodus of thousands of people out of Egypt and into Canaan in the 13th century. However, I had also neglected to mention that in the Ugarit archive we possess high numbers of correspondences between the rulers of this Phoenician city and their Egyptian overlords from as late as 1180, when the city was destroyed by the Sea Peoples. Significantly, there is also no mention in these records of any migrating, conquering horde of Semites beating a path of destruction through Canaan from Egypt.
While I made a careless error in the narration of the video, I think the overall point still stands: whether the size of the Israelite migration is 2 million, 200,000, or 25,000 people, there remains no knowledge of this immense human displacement from any third-party source anywhere. Whether apologists want to situate the Exodus in the 15th, 13th, or any other century, no one else on earth seems to have noticed that it happened, when it supposedly did. This is a minor point, especially compared to the volumes of additional evidence Dr. Josh and I supplied in this video to show rather forcefully that the Conquest of Canaan did not happen. I fully expect Michael in whatever response he offers to hyper-fixate on this small error, and to miss the rest of an otherwise devastating case against his absurdly positivistic view of the biblical narratives.
THANK YOUUUUUUUUUU!'
Ugarit was located far away from Canaan (more precisely, in Syria). So, assuming there was an Exodus, I would find expectable that the Ugaritians did not make reference to this event since there would have been probably no encounters between the two peoples when the Israelites were conquering Canaan and not Syria.
Update: I have recently noticed that Ugarit in the 13th century BC was under the control of the Hittite empire, not the Egyptian one. And there were also no "high numbers of correspondences" between Ugaritians and Egyptians at this period, contrary to what you've claimed. This means that your argument againts the historicity of IP's moderate-scale Exodus in the 13th century BC is entirely wrong.
You made multiple careless errors. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence and arguments from silence .
Negative evidence is not evidence at all
Historians are already aware that we have probably lost the majority of ancient documentation.
So no explicit mention of an exodus in other sources does not lead to the conclusion that it didn't happen
Try responding to I.P and Dr Falk.
@@DrKippDavis Ok, here there are some additional errors and flaws:
1) claimed that Heshbon was not occupied during the Late Bronze Age. However, according to Øystein S. LaBianca and Bethany Walker, the excavations at Tel Hisban found remains from the Late Bronze period, but intensive reuse of the site by later occupants resulted in most remains from that period being found in secondary deposits. 2) also claimed that Dibon was unoccupied at that time as well. However, the egyptologist Kenneth Kitchen has noted that a reference to Dibon seems to appear in a Ramesside itinerary, which suggests that the town did exist during the 13th century BC. 3) Claimed that the Late Bronze Age settlement at Jericho reported by Nigro lasted until the Iron Age (55:00), when Nigro never says such a thing. Rather, Nigro writes that the evidence for this settlement ends at some point in the 13th century BC and that there is no evidence that the site was reoccupied again until the 11th century BC (indicating a gap in the occupational history of the site). 4) Acknowledged that Hazor has evidence of a 13th century BC destruction, but did not provide any evidence against an Israelite conquest of the city other than mentioning Zuckerman's hypothesis that the destruction might have been caused by an internal civil war. Did not seem to note Amnon Ben-Tor's main objection against this hypothesis: If the city was destroyed by its local inhabit-
ants, how does one explain the fact that Hazor was
deserted and remained uninhabited for a period
of approximately 200 years after its destruction?
The local population still had houses (which stood
undestroyed), land and families to support. If they
won the battle, why leave town? You can find more objections to Zuckerman in Ben-Tor's article "Who destroyed Canaanite Hazor", available online.
And that's called due diligence, something sorely lacking in Christian circles.
"If the evidence contradicts the story, I'll just claim that the story doesn't mean what the story says.
That way I can tell myself that the story happened by telling myself that the story didn't happen."
Micheal: If we assume they are lying about how many people left Egypt then that proves they left Egypt
That makes no sense whatsoever!
@@ElizabethMcCormick-s2n that's how michael jones argue. it is like even if you are lying about the numbers or details of a departure, he will just cherrypick and focus on the evidence of the departure and will find tons of philosophical mumbo jumbo garbage to lessen the impact of the lies and/or inaccuracies in the details of it. his fave weapon? CONTEXTUAL INTERPRETATION.
@@ElizabethMcCormick-s2nit makes perfect sense if you argue backwards from a position that you absolutely refuse to examine honestly
If they didn’t lie, atheists would have no arguments at all.
His argument is just that such an interpretation is not needed. Given the fact it just can not be true due to it contradicting other stuff the Bible says and archeology, why assume the false interpretation?
There is "overwhelming support" as long as by "overwhelming support" you mean they wrote about it in the bible. InspiringIdiocy starts with the bible and works backwards trying stretch evidence to make it fit.
"I have an 18 lecture, 14 hour, marathon of ear splitting, jaw dropping, eye bleeding, mind altering content ..." Yeah! YEAH!! METAL!!!
That Orc thing really made me mad. First of all, even Tolkien wrote about how he didn’t like his portrayal of the orcs as completely irredeemable. He said he thought everyone had the potential to be redeemed.
Then he goes on to say “if a modern atheist saw the canaanites sacrificing infants whose side would they be on?” Still not the Israelites side! Oh gee the Canaanite’s were sacrificing _some_ of their babies, so your solution is to kill _all_ of the babies?
And then he goes on to say “the canaanites would burn whole cities to the ground and kill men, women, and children to keep alive for themselves. They were pure evil.” THATS WHAT GOD TOLD THE ISREALITES TO DO. He tells them that, almost word for word. Kill the men, women, and children but keep the virgin girls alive as slaves. Oh my god.
Been hearing about this project for a while, and have been looking forward to it.
And yeah, I love the interplay between Dr. Kill & Dr. Josh. Those two are just too much fun to watch. 😁🤣
My PhD is in medieval history. I was floored to hear the apologists proclaim these ancient fortified sites had only soldiers during their destruction. Obviously my expertise isn't in the ancient period, but during the middle ages civilians always flooded into fortified locations during an invasion and it would have been no different for the ancient period, as Kip Davis rightly points out.
If the invading army didn’t come near them, how did people know to flee to the fortified locations? I’m thinking for example of people to the west of the fortress while the invaders come from the east.
So was he lying about the size of Jericho or the size of Ai?
Paul, thank you for providing a space for content experts to discuss at length. Your role as extremely well informed facilitator is very much appreciated. Many thanks to you and your guest scholars.
The _dehumanization_ really hit me super hard, because I had, for a period of quite a few months, pivoted from typical (debunking) evangelical content to (debunking) creationist content, where they are much more focused on poking holes in evolution, or calling "evolutionists" OUT for supposedly dehumanizing us. I tricked myself into thinking religious people were above routinely, ritualistically dehumanizing themselves and others. Disgusting infectious thought processes...
1:24:57 - I think Tolkien himself might have had some reservations about that considering he struggled with the idea of orcs being inherently evil, as it would conflict with his Catholic worldview.
Funny how half of the online apologists are insulted by Satan's Guide implying apologists are keeping secrets from their flock, while the other half is on a damage control tirade trying to minimize our trust in archeology and make us forget parts of the Bible
'Make us forget parts of the Bible?' The Bible has been always published in it's fullest form post Martin Luther's post.
@@ashishhembrom3905what does that have to do with the comment? I they didn't say the bible isn't available, they are saying apologists are trying to manipulate what and how people interpret of it.
@@bluester7177 again, Bible has been open to free interpretation since Martin Luther's post. Hence why you get the several thousand denominations.
@@ashishhembrom3905 It's true that the Bible being in Latin/Greek was an effective way to maintain exclusive authority over interpreting the text to the illiterate common people, but that doesn't mean that it's the only way of maintaining that authority, and it certainly doesn't stop people from trying even today. (besides, calling it the "fullest form" when a lot of books have been excluded from the Canon on a mostly arbitrary threshold is a bold claim, but that's besides the point that I'd like to focus on).
And to the point that I do want to argue, I can give a few more specific examples to build some grounding:
Christians tend to not pay attention to what the Bible actually says, because most of it is boring and doesn't really make sense on its own. That's why a lot of people just search for the parts that support their preconceived notions, or better yet, have some pastor do that for them and interpret and preach those select parts. With this, it becomes natural to have blind spots to parts of the Bible that would contradict the doctrine that is built on it, and the pastor can exact authority by asserting how a passage is to be interpreted and choosing which parts are relevant in the first place.
A direct example would be someone saying that a part is not wrong, but just metaphorical (like the literal boatloads of nonsense science in the book), or concluding in which way and how far an anecdotal story is meant to be generalized as a life lesson. (like mixed fabrics or calling people bald only being a problem in one case but not in general, while one example of a man and a woman being unified must mean that all alternative means of union are invalid)
So with the mechanisms explained of how someone can still hold authority over the text after Luther translated it, it should also become more easy to understand how exactly the given apologists paint a picture of the slaughter in Jericho that is different than what is described in the text itself.
'The Canaanites were evil, they attacked places, killed all the men and kept the women'
Sounds like Numbers 31 to me :S
Kipp & Josh are amazing! Thanks Paul for having them on to discuss this important topic. Top tier videos, as always.
I love that IP constantly just posions the well. The way he shat on the entire field of archaeology simply because he is too dense to understand the research is very on brand for him.
Except he didn’t do that 😂 cringe internet atheist
@@User81981 flop
@User81981 but we all just watched him do it, cringe internet theist.
@@jaclo3112 no we didn’t, can’t wait for Ip to respond and destroy this. Cringe internet atheist
@@User81981 without lies yahwe dies
What a strange argument these theists have "some stuff in the Bible isn't true, but everything in the Bible is true."
It just shows like Kip you’re not understanding the arguments for the Bible. But if you believe any lie Kip is saying you’re clearly not really listening or thinking.
@@kennethanderson8770
What an absolutely nothing comment. No substance whatsoever. Some homework for you to help you write a more substantial comment next time:
1. What arguments for the bible are being misunderstood? How are they being misunderstood?
2. Does this misunderstanding defeat the point the comment is making? How so?
3. What specific lies has Kip told? How can you tell?
Without fleshing out your comments to at least this extent, your comment can't amount to anything more than an indignant "nuh uh!!!".
Please do better.
@@fieldrequired283 if you have seen kips arguments looked into most scholars views and watched the rebuttal video by inspiring philosophy all your questions are answered. So in pointing you to reliable scholarship my argument is defended and your questions are answered. Kip has proven himself unreliable just like paulogia. Sorry cannot take unreliable Fringe people seriously.
@@kennethanderson8770
I was instructing you on how to compose a substantial, interesting, or informative comment.
This new comment is also completely vacuous. You've gone from "nuh uh!" To "nuh uh! i saw a video that said you were wrong!".
If you have a case, then make it. If you learned something from watching a response video, present that information. These nothing comments are a waste of time.
@@kennethanderson8770 Your argument isn’t defended yet. You haven’t even attempted to use anything from that rebuttal video here to defend it. Also, do you have anything besides that video?
You’re just throwing out a video that you didn’t even link at someone and then trying to run away with the “you aren’t worth my precious time and energy” attitude. I’ve been seeing A LOT of people doing that for Paul, Holy Koolaid, and others and it’s straight-up a BAD MOVE to make because you’re coming off as desperate and unwilling to engage in a conversation- which is the real waste of everyone’s time, not the comment you’re sticking your tongue out at.
Being convinced in the ahistoricity of the exodus and conquest was the final straw that broke my faith’s back
Just because we don't have any evidence that Mongolians riding tigers conquered North America, that doesn't mean it didn't happen.
When I'm looking for learned opinions on the historicity of the book of Joshua, I always look to a self-educated security guard.
Is there a way I can give this infinite likes? I guess I'll just join!
Actually doesnt stop a person from being competent. However, this guy isnt even competent at apologetics. There are really brilliant people that are (were) self educated in many fields.
@@rimmersbryggeri It's true that some people go one to get themselves really well informed on a topic through self study. The issue is that while that tiny percentage of people exist, the average person who absorbs information with no domain knowledge ends up a flat earther. I learned quickly, while working in research, that I had the delusion I could just read papers outside of my field (say psychology for instance) and thankfully friends with that domain knowledge humbled me by showing how easy it was to misconstrue the relevance of a finding when you are looking at it raw.
There is a general attack on faith in scientific rigor. The assumption is that science can't answer all questions so an ignorant person's opinion is as valid as an expert's opinion. We saw a lot of that during the pandemic.
When a scientist discovers something revolutionary some news outlet will report "Scientists baffled!" Nevermind that the scientist devoted his life to making this type of discovery.
No one ever reports "Theists baffled!"
@@rimmersbryggeri How is he not competent in apologetics? Have you watched his professionally made series on the exodus in which he cited the experts in these fields who show that there is evidence for the exodus.
I could have listened to this conversation for another hour!! Thanks so much ❤
I LOOOOOVE the friendly banter guys, you know I LOVE y’all. In the midst of my deep depression I was grinning throughout the beginning of the video
I'm beginning to believe apologists share the same genetics with used car sellers.
At the end of the video, Gavin Ortlund says he got very emotional when reading about the horrors of the Canaanites sacrificing babies to their gods. But as far as I have been able to figure out, there is no archaeological evidence from that time period of this practice going on in Canaan.
In his own video he points to evidence of ritual burials of the charred remains of infants in urns or "tophets" found in the Carthage, which was founded by the Phoenicians, descendants of Canaanites. But the problem is that Carthage is more than 1,500 miles away from Canaan and was founded 400-500 years after the claimed conquest of Canaan occurred.
Thus Gavin is bending backwards so far he can see his own backside to cast the Canaanites as so implacably evil there was no alternative but to destroy their civilization, even as he greatly plays down the genocidal language the Bible uses to describe that destruction, claiming it was just the hyperbolic language typical of ancient histories from that time.
He's right, in that ancient histories often greatly exaggerate the exploits of the heroes -- the histories of the early Roman period do the same thing -- but those same histories also often greatly exaggerate the wickedness of the bad guys, for obvious reasons.
So Gavin his trying to have it both ways -- playing down Biblical accounts of slaughter and destruction by the Israelites while playing up the wickedness of the Canaanites to the point of getting choked up about it in the video. For someone who prides himself as being studied, reasonable, thoughtful, and honest, this reflects very poorly on him.
This failing of the story in the Bible was one of the bigger reasons I started taking a deeper look at my beliefs and Christianity in general. Thanks for putting this together!
Three of my favorite TH-camr/people - this is gonna be awesome... 😊
Then you need to get a better taste in TH-camrs 😂
This was amazing! I think this is 1some of your best work guys. Thank you all so much for making this happen and putting it out there. Bravo!
This is a very good vid... It's awesome having Dr.kipp and Dr.josh kill the topic thanks Paul you're the best
An hour and a half vid from Paul and it isn't even my bday yet
*_Set Up For Failure_** ?*
Why did the Biblical God, choose the exact same flawed & failed methods to spread his message,
as all of the other countless religions & Gods that humanity has believed in throughout history ?
_(personal testimony and the written & spoken words of men that "claim" to speak for God)_
The apologists' jobs depend on maintaining the orthodox positions. Not even the ghosts of Moses and Joshua could change this in a vision.
They don’t have jobs. They have gigs.
26:20 I think people view InspiringIdiocy's content do ZERO fact checking beyond watching this video. He makes them feel less stupid for believing in fables with ZERO evidence. They don't want to look elsewhere or they may find out he is wrong and then they are back to feeling stupid.
His sources often say the opposite of what he claims as Tim O'Neill showed
Wow, that last ten minutes. That’s why I’m an anti theist. Horrifying.
Inspiring Incredulity strikes again.
Fair but I enjoy listening to him more than YEC christians lol
@@ritchie6162 It's masochism either way! 😃
@@utubepunk fair.
@@utubepunk
Not sure disparaging remarks represent your position well.
@@FuddlyDud
It's an observation. Not an attack
=== SIGN UP FOR THE COURSES! www.tinyurl.com/JoshMyths www.tinyurl.com/KippReligion
love Josh and Kipp, pretty cool for geniuses...genii... 😕
Hello Paul, please edit the video to include the following correction
At minutes 34-35 they claim that an Exodus comprising some 20.000 people could not have taken place because if so this event would have been mentioned in the Amarna letters, which they seem to erroneously date to the 13th century BC, when in fact they date to a century earlier (which makes them too early to have made any reference to the Exodus-Conquest event as postulated by IP).
You should pin Josh & Kipp's comments from below
@@jackpatterson8389watch the response video by IP with an actual scholar. These two guys lied to you.
I'd watch hours of Drs. Kipp Davis and Joshua Bowen teaching the historical consensus. They're the coolest Ancient Near East duo this side of the Nile! I've always enjoyed their responses to apologists as well. Thank you for the great content!
Great work, fellas! 👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼 Your humor makes learning so much fun. Thank you.
I particularly enjoyed this one. Nice work guys.
By the way: I have bought the courses of Kip and Josh - total recommendation from my side! I am a fan now.
Thank you!
When apologists struggle to justify the Bible, they turn their backs on faith to rely on pseudoscience and their “interpretation” of scripture. Apparently they think believing by faith isn’t a good enough justification to be a Christian. I remember being so arrogant about how much faith I had.
27:27 Can someone please explain how you could possibly think "eleph" in Numbers means anything other than "thousand"? It's called the book of Numbers for a reason! During a census, results of tribes are summed together like we would expect for literal population counts. (Eg. Numbers 1.45-46) Not as shorthand for 'military group' or 'clan'.
It's just like Ken Ham and "kind." It means whatever the apologist needs it to mean at the moment.
But, you see, those were "clans." And then, when they rendered the half-shekel tax, those were "clans" of shekels that were collected. Duh.
It could be a figure of speech akin to "dozens and dozens" meaning "a largish number but not necessarily evenly divided by 12". But I do agree that the census-taking does make such a meaning less likely. Though I have no idea how accurate a bronze age census would theoretically be
"Shut up, Kip." I'm 4:40 into this thing and the energy is fantastic. Can you keep it up for another 85 minutes? Let's hop so.
LOL. I've been watching the interplay between those two for the last 2 years or so. And of course they can. 😁
I couldn't enjoy this video until I put the phone down and just listened on headphones. That tie was just too iridescent and distracting. It visually overwhelms the whole piece!
Thanks for doing this, guys. All three of you do a great job ... as usual
*The Dishonest Christian ;*
Always willing to give the automatic _"benefit of the doubt",_ to their preferred Christian beliefs.
While at the same time refusing to apply the same methods, they use for finding truth in Christianity, to any other religion.
By this logic, doesn’t this mean all atheists are dishonest for presuming a form of naturalism/physicalist and automatically giving the benefit of the doubt to this worldview while dismissing all ideas of the spiritual/immaterial?
I mean, if you want to call everyone dishonest, this is one great way to do so! :P
Nonsense. You don't read or listen very broadly do you. That is a trademark of Christian exegetical works- applying a consistent standard.
@@theol64 *_Oh, really_** ?*
So they accept hearsay testimony, for miracle claims from other religions, do they ? lol
To assert that "evangelicals" use the _exact same methods_ they use for Christianity, when investigating other religious claims, is utter non sense.
*Evangelicals, **_are not Biblical scholars_** .*
As evidenced by the thousands of versions of Christianity that disagree on almost everything in the Bible.
_Not the same for Biblical scholars._
@moodyrick8503
Mmmm hmmm. So you hold that there is no fundamental understanding that makes distinction?
OK. Drink from every stream no matter what. Not me.
@@theol64
Trying to put words in my mouth.
_What a stunning rebuttal._ lol
And "Mommy hmmm" ? WTF ?
*Go Troll Someone Else.*
This will be a blast to watch! ❤
Does your a.s...s still hurt after dyer spread it?
I think it's funny the way apologists have to specify that infant sacrifice to God is wrong rather than just human sacrifice to God. I guess that's one additional benefit of being secularly minded
1:17:00 "I know it sounds bad, but that's what God said to do. If you want to make an omelette, you gotta break some eggs."
Several million eggs!
Yes it sounds very bad, that's because it is.
Sadly, Kipp and Josh have no demonstrable credentials in the relevant field of video game criticism. There is no indication that either has played, let alone completed Orcs Must Die! 1, 2, or 3. Based on this video, I'm not sure whether they are even aware of the recently announced Orcs Must Die! Deathtrap. Look, I want to sin as much as the next guy, but that is hardly an excuse to ignore mainstream scholarship from the likes of IGN or GameInformer. I'm hoping that Paulogia raises his standards in future videos.
Fortunately, Lord of the Rings exists beyond the plethora of computer games.
I love this long-form content! Keep it up , Paul!
Yep, keep lying!!!
7:18 I wonder if the point that Josh just made doesn’t point to the need for an “apologia to English” dictionary.
“When apologists say their idea is backed by ‘overwhelming evidence’, what they mean is ‘a case which occasionally flirts with plausibility at the edges’.” When apologists say, “This gives us a thoroughly credible case,” what they mean is, “admittedly, no serious person takes this idea seriously, but if the underlying question makes you really anxious, this scabby old rag could serve a makeshift security blanket for you.” When an apologist says, “even atheists must admit this is at least possible,” what they mean is, “my Ph D is in physiognomy and I make my living leeching off your desperation.”
It is incredible how the "that's sin" people, need to lie, make assumptions, dismiss evidence... It is just incredible to see them fart their way to arrive at conclusions they already have.
Here to support our epistemologist and apostal @paulogia
I've watched this twice. Next time, I will take notes. So much great info!
Are we sure that Michael is working on a degree in philosophy? He seems to be focusing more on sophistry.
that is definitely sophistry and not philosophy. and the only thing he's inspiring is ignorance.
@@adamcosper3308 top tier rebuttal adam. Write it on a napkin and put it on your fridge door.
@@joe5959 It's obviously not meant to be a rebuttal. Keep on talking shit on the Internet for Christ.
@@adamcosper3308keep groveling before your god paulogia and his crew of misfits.
@@joe5959 lol
@inspiringphilosophy reminds me of myself as a young student of philosophy and biblical studies, too ignorant of scholarship to have any idea how arrogant I sound and clueless about how little I actually know about anything compared to scholars who dedicate their lives to just a handful of topics. Humility is a virtue.
Great episode!
"I want to quote an eminent scholar, "When you are consistently getting the scholarship wrong this should disqualify your participation from the discussion'" - Dr. David Falk
Isn't that the professional Christian excusigist Michael brought to his channel? One of those who start with the conclusion that the Bible is true and then work backward to build a case that tries to explain away the evidence we have?
@@vejekeI suggest watching IPs video where he basically buried paul and his crew of misfits. He brought on an expert in the field, not an apologist.
I also suggest you formulate better arguments if you want anyone to take you seriously.
@@joe5959 😂🌎
I never could get behind the "He gave life and therefor he can take it away." Like, even if I grant that he gave humans existence, I fundamentally disagree that just because someone made humans that means they have the right to kill them as they see fit.
"If you created life, wouldn't it be your right to do whatever you want with it?"
No??? Causing suffering and death doesn't suddenly become okay because it's done by the person that made them
Michael “I’ll cherry pick what data I want” Jones
Nah thats paulogia cherry picking his "scholars"
@@joe5959 You mean like those apologist "scholars" who start with their conclusion and work backwards?
@@joe5959 please provide any evidence you have access to which could serve to discredit Doctors Davis and Bowen
@@shinobi-no-buenoSure. Kipps comments are littered throughout this youtube comment space and hes quite active. A good example would be his interaction with the channel "Testify". Go back about 6 or so months and look at the treasure trove of dishonesty when he is confronted about the NT in the comment sections.
@@joe5959 so you have absolutely nothing. Thanks for confirming.
InspiringIdiocy is sooooooo condescending and annoying. He acts like he holds the intellectual high ground while he is the one believing in magic with ZERO evidence other than his slavery endorsing book.
He offers a bunch of evidence, but all you can do is insult while you refuse to actually look at his arguments honestly and only watch refutations to them by dishonest people like the ones in this video 😂
@@User81981 Can you point to a specific dishonest refutation in this video?
@@User81981 Lol InspiringIdiocy is the dishonest one. The people in this video are ACTUAL biblical scholars doing ACTUAL work in the field. People who have been educated, doing this research, and teaching others for YEARS. They believe in evidence and following it to truth rather than starting with bible magic and trying to twist misconceptions of science to make it fit with a biblical model. It's called confirmation bias and it is the EXACT opposite of how we are supposed to do science.
Tag team analysis by Dr. Davis and Dr. Bowen....who could ever stand a chance? Fantastic presentation, every bit as good as I anticipated.
Michael: “Humans are most similar to the Orcs in Lord of the Rings in terms of the races”
Does… does Michael not know that there are humans in Lord of the Rings?
They seem to think one becomes human only after accepting Christianity. It's the rest of us who are "Orcs" to them.
including *evil* ones the Easterlings and the corsairs
His point is that the humans in Lord of the Rings (I’m assuming he’s referring to Aragorn’s ilk, Boromir, etc.) act better or are more noble than humans here. Therefore, we most resemble Orcs.
Having grown up LDS (Mormon), it’s fascinating to hear these Bible “experts” try to “prove” something that doesn’t have any good evidence of existing. They use the same arguments you would hear people who try to prove the Book of Mormon through archaeology. It would be funny to hear their thoughts of Book of Mormon archaeology and be forced to deny the same arguments they have for Biblical events that didn’t exist either.
"Archaeologists aren't out there making guesses and just making [stuff] up" ... We save that for apologists 😁
These guys are so dishonest and it’s hard for me to believe at this point they don’t realize it. The Bible is literal whenever they want it to be, unless it’s clear that the literal reading is wrong. Then you have to take into account cultural relevance, or it’s figurative. There is no key to tell you what is literal, what is cultural, and what is figurative. It’s just based on the argument that is attempting to be made.
About 900 years ago, near what is now York, Pennsylvania, there was a highly advanced and mechanized civilization which dominated the region. A massive earthquake devastated the area and wiped away all traces of their existence…which is proven by the complete lack of evidence we find for them today!
Why do I have the sudden impulse to buy a rainbow bow tie? Weird!
to remind yourself that God has promised not to destroy the world with water again?
I don't ever wear a bow tie, but I'll be rocking my rainbow head sweatband at the gym. Haha
That would be a rain bow tie.
@@DeludedOne 👍🏽
Fun fact: the rainbow got 7 colors only because Isaac Newton thought it really ought to have that many. Nobody mentioned "indigo" before.
“It’s F ing Overwhelming” Why “Because Reasons” Why “Because I can’t believe I’ve been believing Suff that’s made up.”
Just like Noah's Ark InspiringIdiocy pulls "What if" statements directly from his ass with ZERO support in order to answer the GLARING issues with their magical mythic worldview.
I used to be bothered by the conquest of Canaan until I learned that in addition to sacrificing children, the Cananites wore bow ties. The command to “ destroy them totally,” makes so much more sense in that context.
Great work
There's a hundred great quotes in this. Thank you Paul, Dr. Kipp, and Dr. Josh for all of your work. It matters. :)
Damn, that ending illustration of the Israelites being the Orcs in LOTR was 🔥
Apologists stack plausibility upon plausibility to excuse conflicting data, whereas scholars attempt to weigh all the evidence they are aware of.
Mike and Gavin are both scholarly literate enough to assuage the concerns of 99% of their audience by citing scholarship, but without ever really addressing the underlying issues.
What really irked me with Gavin’s “cities don’t have civilians” argument is that for it to work, the ANE warfare would have to be different from warfare everywhere else in recorded history. People in the countryside fled for the safety of walls. Jericho and other walled cities would have absolutely had women and children inside, all of which were ritually slaughtered (harem) when the city fell.
"I use the analogy of the movie Inception" aka "I appeal to a fictional movie to defend my fictional conception of my fictional faith"
That’s some top-notch blinkin’, Paul!
appreciate! I've been practicing
It is funny how they preach that we shouldn't take these texts literally, that we have to understand the cultural context.
But this cultural context can't ever be one in which the people wrote fable and myths about themselves like tons of contemporary cultures and that the exodus is one of them.
If they claim to be so comfortable with looking at the bible with a contextual eye, then why are they so against the possibility of it being an unreliable myth.
Historically it's a near universal in a siege situation that those living in the area would move into the city or fortress before it became besieged (if possible) not those inside moving away. That's because, historically, the safest place for civilians in a siege situation was inside the besieged location, where they had places to hide, soldiers protecting the location and other advantages. Outside the siege they were at the mercy of the attackers or any groups of bandits that would have been in an area suddenly denuded of its protection.
Love how apologists expose themselves as pompous peddlers: "Inspiring Philosophy" and "Truth Unites" are labels implying great data, understanding and excellent analysis combined with superb communication: all of which are lacking, especially when you folks such as Kipp, Josh and Paul apply their informed and practiced minds on the presentation
Great work by good eggs. Thanks folks
For those who say, "Oh, that's in the OT" - remember that the bible is approximately 77% Old Testament and 23% New Testament.
...AND, Remember -- when FundieXtians go looking for 'Justifications' to "HATE The Other in the Name of god's PERFECT' Love", they Invariably quote the OT...
Do you know what's also only in the OT? Original Sin; What was Jesus supposed to save us from if the OT can be so flippantly disregarded?
I like to remind them of the bit where Jesus supposedly said he didn't come to change the law, but to reinforce it. It's wild to me how many "Christians" disregard the tenets of Christianity. Very much a "rules for thee and not for me" mentality.
Don't forget that the ten commandments which they love so much but don't even seem to realize that there are three different versions of, come from the Old testament as well. Somehow that's different because they said so.
@@thembill8246 641 of them!
We do have a record of a group of "Canaanites" leaving Egypt and settling in Palestine.
1573BCE, the Hyksos, as they were called, went on to establish the city that would become Jerusalem.
But, this doesn't help the biblical narrative. Rather than escaping, they were invaders who the Egyptians drove out. And, they were Baal worshippers.
If you accept that the bible misrepresents everything we actually have evidence for, it's not difficult to see how the folk memory of this could be woven into the myths that were written down in the 7th century BCE.
I think you are filling in the blanks a bit there. There isn't any hieroglyph that says that people left Egypt and founded Jerusalem. That wouldn't make any sense anyway since Jerusalem pre-existed the Jewish takeover of the city.
@@PrometheanRising And Jerusalem appears in Egyptian records prior to the Hyksos
@@PrometheanRising I suggest you look up the Hyksos.
Excellent video, and thank you for calling out the two non-archaeologists on their patronising and uninformed comments on archaeology. A little more introspection, humility, and due respect for scholarly opinion from Christian apologists would not go astray.