Regardless of where the word 'sin' comes from, or what it means in the bible, what ultimately matters in life is how people use it. And as long as some people mean 'sin' to be something that is bad, or to be condemned, and then apply it to harmless things like being gay, then those are people to distance yourself from. There is a distinction between the angry Christians who will say "Burn in hell, sinner!", and those who say "Hate the sin, love the sinner.", but even the latter group is calling gay people sinners, as if their existence is inherently wrong. I (not religious) prefer to associate myself theists who reserve the condemning label of 'sin' for things that are indeed actively bad in this world. The things that do active harm, which no deity even needs to tell you is harmful.
Christians believe that God has a beautiful design for marriage and sexuality which involves a man and a woman together in marriage. And that we, as His creation, don't get to make up our own definition. When we do, we offend a Holy God and cause chaos in our own lives. You may or may not believe this, but Christians are acting out of love for both God and their neighbor by being honest with them about God's design. Christians don't condemn anyone. We are simply called to love our neighbor which involves telling the truth. With that said, some who claim the name of Christ will act out of hate, which is never acceptable. But that's not all of us. God bless! :)
6:44 I'm sorry, but no we don't have the originals, much of the Old testament is stories that are from 1300 to 2000 BCE, none of this was really written down until 300 to 500 BCE, I believe the earliest copies we have of those written versions is from the first or second century... Again, I might be wrong on the exact details here but the point is the same, there is a long time for interpolation, edition and subtraction from something that's supposed to be the perfect word of God.
Right, I wasn't saying that we have the original manuscripts. With the Old Testament we are generally working with things like the Masoretic text, many quotations from the New Testament, Dead Sea Scrolls (which contained a copy of Isaiah that was basically identical to the earliest copy we possessed, despite a nearly 1,000 year leap backwards in time), and so on. With the New Testament we have various streams of manuscripts going out from the early church which has left us with a bunch of early fragments which date as far back as the 2nd century, and then texts like Codex Sinaiticus (which contains most of the Old Testament and the entire New Testament) dating to the 4th Century. Ultimately with Old Testament, I like to look at Jesus' view of the Jewish scriptures, which was that he took for granted that it was the words of God and held people accountable to them (one example: Matthew 22:31-32). If you don't think he's the prophesied messiah, or that we can't know what Jesus said, or that the Old Testament has been radically altered since the 1st century, that will probably mean nothing to you. But if you think the gospel accounts can be trusted, it's pretty amazing.
6:48 None of these verses actually give a definition of sin, other than the ones in Galatians, and in that case its still not a solid definition of what it means to do wrong, rather a list of examples of things that Paul believes to be wrong. Even here, it wasn’t these things that you highlighted green. If you want to talk about cutting off the legs to stand on you first need to address all of the other contradictions in the Bible and get your head around weather or not it is ‘the irrefutable word of God’…
In this video I was only choosing a few verses that point to how the writers (in this case, Paul) viewed the concept of sin at the time of writing his letters. But also, sin leading to death and sin causing us to fall short of God's glory are absolutely definitional statements about sin. The rest of his letters and the rest of the Biblical texts flesh things out more to give us a consistent and robust definition. But my point was that they had an understanding of sin that was more than merely missing the mark for yourself. So Rainn's assertion that the idea of sin being more than that came about by some other means such as translation, doesn't make sense when the Bible already contained rich teaching on the subject before anyone ever translated the texts. And the conversation of the coherence and consistency of the Bible is one I've greatly enjoyed studying. And one that could make this comment thread as long as the Bible haha. I'm happy to discuss specifics if you like. But whenever I do study this topic, I only find more consistency. God bless! I appreciate the comment. :)
Study theology and languages. And the bible diffently translates to own thaughts on subject especialy when put into new laugauge forns.different groups will write it in their versions to lead to understands that they have.
I have. We have thousands of Biblical manuscripts to compare and thousands of scholars to compare them. If somebody writes in their own understanding into a Bible text during translation, we know about it and can examine the differences. Translating a text into a new language can obviously involve challenges when trying to carry over the original meaning of words. But that’s why scholars study the original languages. My point in the video is that entire phrases would have to be mistranslated for us to have a misunderstanding of how the biblical writers looked at sin.
@reddapologetics the people don't see it or hear it and don't have a theological dictionary. They just learn it from there pastors. In babtist churches they don't hear anything about the spirit acknowledgement or no babtism at all just go into the water and you are saved.all the different words used for god etc. Translate or don't etc.
Sure. I think churches should be teaching from the Bible, good theology, church history, etc. I also think the people should be intentional about learning on their own time. Part of why I make these videos is to be a learning resource for those who want to interact with others about their faith. There are plenty of resources out there. People just have to willing.
When you translate a word in one form and don't translater it in others then you are hiding information that doesn't fit your story that you want understood
Im sorry, but no you still aren't addressing the thrust of the argument here while you can nitpick the wxamples. The entire point is that translating a holy scripture supposedly from god into different languages means that people can read the exact same text and get something completely different from it. In literature and history this is exactly what we would expect, but if you think this is an all knowing perfect loving God i dont think you can brush aside how badly written his book was so that people could misunderstand it so easily... Its almost like this was just the amalgamation of mens thoughts and ideals and not literally from a divine being...
I don't think that was their point. I think the point was that the process of translation and differences in culture causes us to see terms like sin differently. My response involved going back to Biblical statements about sin which are translated from the original language to make the point that these ideas about sin did not develop over time. And about the Bible being badly written, I completely disagree. It self authenticates and it's nature points to divine authorship. It’s consistency of teaching about things like who God is, salvation, and prophecy is wonderfully consistent. Which is not what you would expect from a library of books written by around 40 authors over 1,500 years. Thanks for the comment! God bless! :)
"i dont want to listent to what someone says about my belief if they arent already indoctrinated and emotionally invested in holding the same belief i do" if you want to actually understand yourself, your beliefs, and your reality, its wise to absorb different perspectives and learn to see the world through eyes other than your own.
While I of course disagree with their perspective and think it's deceptive, I think we can learn a lot from it as a means to test the consistency of our own beliefs. And to know how to interact with others who hold these beliefs for the sake of the gospel. God bless!
@@reddapologetics With all due respect, I was raised atheist. And Bahai'i is essentially an attempt at ecumenism. Both of which we've been inundated with our whole lives. We've heard atheists' arguments ad nauseum. Its time to simply move on and begin retaking the culture from them. As for Bahai'i, they reject the Gospel and have no competing revelation or historicity, and so I don't take them very seriously. Of course dialog is a necessity, especially if we are to convert others to the faith. But this culture of passive learning and blanket acceptance of others' ideas has allowed our culture to stagnate and decay, meanwhile people know very little about what the Church or her Scriptures have to say.
I agree with a lot of what you say here. And you won’t hear me saying that we should try to find middle ground with those who reject God’s truth so we can dance around the fire together. We must call out falsehood inside and outside of the church. However, we also can’t expect to have a meaningful conversation with anyone and demonstrate inconsistencies if we don’t take the time to understand they’re position. Paul tells us to gently instruct our opponents in the hopes that they will come to repentance. That’s what I aim for. God bless! :)
the bible of today is the result of copies of copies of copies of the original text--none of the original manuscripts have survived. so imagine, over the centuries scribes in all different parts of the ancient near east copying copies of texts, all independently. if we wanted to find out if there were any mistakes or mistranslations, we could check to see if earlier copies and later copies are the same. turns out! we don't have to imagine because scholars have many earlier and later texts that show mistakes and mistranslations, even out right additions which have turned up in our modern bible. I think this is what they are riffing about in the video, and in that sense they're correct. The text itself, as well as the way christians have interpreted it has changed over time, and it is impossible to know what exactly those original manuscripts said.
Yes there is a gap between the time of the original manuscripts and the dating of the existing manuscripts that we possess, and yes the manuscript tradition involves copies of copies. However, with the Bible, we have very early manuscript evidence in comparison to other historical writings. And, as you said, we have various uncontrolled streams of manuscripts going into different parts of the world that we can compare as we look for inconsistencies. This is a good thing! We do find inconsistencies (which would be expected), but the vast majority of them are insignificant things like scribal errors. Where there are considerable differences, as you said, we 2024 folks have the privilege of being able to compare the various streams of manuscript evidence to make an assessment. The question then becomes: Did the dispersed and persecuted early church, who valued God's word as divinely inspired, create tremendous changes in the earliest manuscripts which we no longer possess that we would miss today? I see no reason to assume that. We also have findings like the Dead Sea Scrolls which contained the Isaiah Scroll, which was a 1,000 year leap backwards from the next earliest copy of Isaiah that we possessed when they were found. They contained a basically identical copy of Isaiah to the next earliest one, which makes the point that the passage of time doesn't automatically mean that massive changes will be made to a text. Thanks for the comment! God bless! :)
Genuinely adorable watching a TH-cam philosopher spot checking a person that has A LITERAL DEGREE in the subject, and has over 10 YEARS in experience in the arena, but no, please go on with your subjective, opinionated, inexperienced, AND religious spoken thoughts. That's the thing. Not a single religious person can be unbiased, but I see COUNTLESS examples of unbiased atheist or agnostic individuals. More power to you and your opinions, but I wish you religious types would just present facts as facts, instead of relying on memes and stupid cutaways for 75% of your videos. Big Conversion Fail for me 👎🏼
That first half is a big appeal to authority. You see countless examples of unbiased atheists but 0 religious people who are unbiased? That sounds like a bias! He used one meme, at the end of the video. I think it was quite a reasonable rebuttle that relied on solid referencing, not conjecture etc. Hope you are doing okay!
Everyone has a bias. That's why we use critical thought to test our ideas. And I find your last paragraph interesting because I spent the entire video explaining why their perspective on the subject is incoherent by addressing their ideas directly using, as @piershammond7164 points out, various on-screen source references and illustrations. I used a few cutaways to either make the video more engaging, or in the case of The Office cutaway to make my point about authorities in a humorous/relevant way. I think it's funny that Rainn was literally in the clip. Good times! I didn't think that would be the point of contention in the video. 😂 Thanks for the comment! God bless!
great video ! high production quality nGod bless you brother
I appreciate that! I'm glad you enjoyed it. God bless! :)
Regardless of where the word 'sin' comes from, or what it means in the bible, what ultimately matters in life is how people use it. And as long as some people mean 'sin' to be something that is bad, or to be condemned, and then apply it to harmless things like being gay, then those are people to distance yourself from. There is a distinction between the angry Christians who will say "Burn in hell, sinner!", and those who say "Hate the sin, love the sinner.", but even the latter group is calling gay people sinners, as if their existence is inherently wrong. I (not religious) prefer to associate myself theists who reserve the condemning label of 'sin' for things that are indeed actively bad in this world. The things that do active harm, which no deity even needs to tell you is harmful.
Christians believe that God has a beautiful design for marriage and sexuality which involves a man and a woman together in marriage. And that we, as His creation, don't get to make up our own definition. When we do, we offend a Holy God and cause chaos in our own lives. You may or may not believe this, but Christians are acting out of love for both God and their neighbor by being honest with them about God's design. Christians don't condemn anyone. We are simply called to love our neighbor which involves telling the truth. With that said, some who claim the name of Christ will act out of hate, which is never acceptable. But that's not all of us. God bless! :)
6:44 I'm sorry, but no we don't have the originals, much of the Old testament is stories that are from 1300 to 2000 BCE, none of this was really written down until 300 to 500 BCE, I believe the earliest copies we have of those written versions is from the first or second century... Again, I might be wrong on the exact details here but the point is the same, there is a long time for interpolation, edition and subtraction from something that's supposed to be the perfect word of God.
Right, I wasn't saying that we have the original manuscripts. With the Old Testament we are generally working with things like the Masoretic text, many quotations from the New Testament, Dead Sea Scrolls (which contained a copy of Isaiah that was basically identical to the earliest copy we possessed, despite a nearly 1,000 year leap backwards in time), and so on. With the New Testament we have various streams of manuscripts going out from the early church which has left us with a bunch of early fragments which date as far back as the 2nd century, and then texts like Codex Sinaiticus (which contains most of the Old Testament and the entire New Testament) dating to the 4th Century.
Ultimately with Old Testament, I like to look at Jesus' view of the Jewish scriptures, which was that he took for granted that it was the words of God and held people accountable to them (one example: Matthew 22:31-32). If you don't think he's the prophesied messiah, or that we can't know what Jesus said, or that the Old Testament has been radically altered since the 1st century, that will probably mean nothing to you. But if you think the gospel accounts can be trusted, it's pretty amazing.
what would channels like this do without others doing all the work, so your neighbor could talk about it on youtube?
Such a great response! 💯 appreciate this one!
I'm glad you enjoyed it! Thank you so much. :)
6:48 None of these verses actually give a definition of sin, other than the ones in Galatians, and in that case its still not a solid definition of what it means to do wrong, rather a list of examples of things that Paul believes to be wrong. Even here, it wasn’t these things that you highlighted green.
If you want to talk about cutting off the legs to stand on you first need to address all of the other contradictions in the Bible and get your head around weather or not it is ‘the irrefutable word of God’…
In this video I was only choosing a few verses that point to how the writers (in this case, Paul) viewed the concept of sin at the time of writing his letters. But also, sin leading to death and sin causing us to fall short of God's glory are absolutely definitional statements about sin. The rest of his letters and the rest of the Biblical texts flesh things out more to give us a consistent and robust definition. But my point was that they had an understanding of sin that was more than merely missing the mark for yourself. So Rainn's assertion that the idea of sin being more than that came about by some other means such as translation, doesn't make sense when the Bible already contained rich teaching on the subject before anyone ever translated the texts.
And the conversation of the coherence and consistency of the Bible is one I've greatly enjoyed studying. And one that could make this comment thread as long as the Bible haha. I'm happy to discuss specifics if you like. But whenever I do study this topic, I only find more consistency.
God bless! I appreciate the comment. :)
Study theology and languages. And the bible diffently translates to own thaughts on subject especialy when put into new laugauge forns.different groups will write it in their versions to lead to understands that they have.
I have. We have thousands of Biblical manuscripts to compare and thousands of scholars to compare them. If somebody writes in their own understanding into a Bible text during translation, we know about it and can examine the differences. Translating a text into a new language can obviously involve challenges when trying to carry over the original meaning of words. But that’s why scholars study the original languages. My point in the video is that entire phrases would have to be mistranslated for us to have a misunderstanding of how the biblical writers looked at sin.
@reddapologetics the people don't see it or hear it and don't have a theological dictionary. They just learn it from there pastors. In babtist churches they don't hear anything about the spirit acknowledgement or no babtism at all just go into the water and you are saved.all the different words used for god etc. Translate or don't etc.
Sure. I think churches should be teaching from the Bible, good theology, church history, etc. I also think the people should be intentional about learning on their own time. Part of why I make these videos is to be a learning resource for those who want to interact with others about their faith. There are plenty of resources out there. People just have to willing.
When you translate a word in one form and don't translater it in others then you are hiding information that doesn't fit your story that you want understood
I’m a bit confused. Are you saying I was hiding information in this video?
@reddapologetics no am saying that you don't inform them enough to lit them understand.time and all considerations
Got ya! Can you show me where that's happening in the video?
Im sorry, but no you still aren't addressing the thrust of the argument here while you can nitpick the wxamples. The entire point is that translating a holy scripture supposedly from god into different languages means that people can read the exact same text and get something completely different from it. In literature and history this is exactly what we would expect, but if you think this is an all knowing perfect loving God i dont think you can brush aside how badly written his book was so that people could misunderstand it so easily... Its almost like this was just the amalgamation of mens thoughts and ideals and not literally from a divine being...
I don't think that was their point. I think the point was that the process of translation and differences in culture causes us to see terms like sin differently. My response involved going back to Biblical statements about sin which are translated from the original language to make the point that these ideas about sin did not develop over time. And about the Bible being badly written, I completely disagree. It self authenticates and it's nature points to divine authorship. It’s consistency of teaching about things like who God is, salvation, and prophecy is wonderfully consistent. Which is not what you would expect from a library of books written by around 40 authors over 1,500 years.
Thanks for the comment! God bless! :)
So...I'm not really interested in what an atheist and a Bahai'i have to say on the subject of sin. It's easy to dismiss this out of hand.
"i dont want to listent to what someone says about my belief if they arent already indoctrinated and emotionally invested in holding the same belief i do"
if you want to actually understand yourself, your beliefs, and your reality, its wise to absorb different perspectives and learn to see the world through eyes other than your own.
@@krangitebacon5039Yeah right, what an arrogant comment that was.
While I of course disagree with their perspective and think it's deceptive, I think we can learn a lot from it as a means to test the consistency of our own beliefs. And to know how to interact with others who hold these beliefs for the sake of the gospel. God bless!
@@reddapologetics With all due respect, I was raised atheist. And Bahai'i is essentially an attempt at ecumenism. Both of which we've been inundated with our whole lives.
We've heard atheists' arguments ad nauseum. Its time to simply move on and begin retaking the culture from them.
As for Bahai'i, they reject the Gospel and have no competing revelation or historicity, and so I don't take them very seriously.
Of course dialog is a necessity, especially if we are to convert others to the faith. But this culture of passive learning and blanket acceptance of others' ideas has allowed our culture to stagnate and decay, meanwhile people know very little about what the Church or her Scriptures have to say.
I agree with a lot of what you say here. And you won’t hear me saying that we should try to find middle ground with those who reject God’s truth so we can dance around the fire together. We must call out falsehood inside and outside of the church. However, we also can’t expect to have a meaningful conversation with anyone and demonstrate inconsistencies if we don’t take the time to understand they’re position. Paul tells us to gently instruct our opponents in the hopes that they will come to repentance. That’s what I aim for. God bless! :)
the bible of today is the result of copies of copies of copies of the original text--none of the original manuscripts have survived. so imagine, over the centuries scribes in all different parts of the ancient near east copying copies of texts, all independently. if we wanted to find out if there were any mistakes or mistranslations, we could check to see if earlier copies and later copies are the same. turns out! we don't have to imagine because scholars have many earlier and later texts that show mistakes and mistranslations, even out right additions which have turned up in our modern bible. I think this is what they are riffing about in the video, and in that sense they're correct. The text itself, as well as the way christians have interpreted it has changed over time, and it is impossible to know what exactly those original manuscripts said.
Yes there is a gap between the time of the original manuscripts and the dating of the existing manuscripts that we possess, and yes the manuscript tradition involves copies of copies. However, with the Bible, we have very early manuscript evidence in comparison to other historical writings. And, as you said, we have various uncontrolled streams of manuscripts going into different parts of the world that we can compare as we look for inconsistencies. This is a good thing! We do find inconsistencies (which would be expected), but the vast majority of them are insignificant things like scribal errors. Where there are considerable differences, as you said, we 2024 folks have the privilege of being able to compare the various streams of manuscript evidence to make an assessment.
The question then becomes: Did the dispersed and persecuted early church, who valued God's word as divinely inspired, create tremendous changes in the earliest manuscripts which we no longer possess that we would miss today? I see no reason to assume that.
We also have findings like the Dead Sea Scrolls which contained the Isaiah Scroll, which was a 1,000 year leap backwards from the next earliest copy of Isaiah that we possessed when they were found. They contained a basically identical copy of Isaiah to the next earliest one, which makes the point that the passage of time doesn't automatically mean that massive changes will be made to a text.
Thanks for the comment! God bless! :)
Genuinely adorable watching a TH-cam philosopher spot checking a person that has A LITERAL DEGREE in the subject, and has over 10 YEARS in experience in the arena, but no, please go on with your subjective, opinionated, inexperienced, AND religious spoken thoughts.
That's the thing. Not a single religious person can be unbiased, but I see COUNTLESS examples of unbiased atheist or agnostic individuals.
More power to you and your opinions, but I wish you religious types would just present facts as facts, instead of relying on memes and stupid cutaways for 75% of your videos. Big Conversion Fail for me 👎🏼
That first half is a big appeal to authority. You see countless examples of unbiased atheists but 0 religious people who are unbiased? That sounds like a bias!
He used one meme, at the end of the video.
I think it was quite a reasonable rebuttle that relied on solid referencing, not conjecture etc.
Hope you are doing okay!
Everyone has a bias. That's why we use critical thought to test our ideas. And I find your last paragraph interesting because I spent the entire video explaining why their perspective on the subject is incoherent by addressing their ideas directly using, as @piershammond7164 points out, various on-screen source references and illustrations. I used a few cutaways to either make the video more engaging, or in the case of The Office cutaway to make my point about authorities in a humorous/relevant way. I think it's funny that Rainn was literally in the clip. Good times! I didn't think that would be the point of contention in the video. 😂 Thanks for the comment! God bless!