Sometimes whenever I post videos I get someone on the comment section that wants to debate me on a given issue. Most just don't respond back to me after I reply to them, but a few of them do. This is the case with this person. I won't use his real name (which I don't know anyway), nor his YouTube designation, but will just call him "Steve" as a way of protecting his identity. To add this to a context, I will briefly describe my background with this person. Previously I had debated this person for about a month. He became obsessed with replying to me. The harassments got so bad that I had, eventually, & unfortunately, had to force him to stop replying to me. The debate was over a strange theory in which he saw the Hebrew in light of some pictographic symbolism of its alleged respected origins. Every Hebrew letter of the Old Testament was reinterpreted by this person, & every Hebrew word meant something other than what it said. Eventually I defeated him in the debate twice, but I had to force him off my channel. It was something I wanted to strongly avoid doing, but with a heavy heart, and after numerous warnings, I had managed to force him off my channel. However, every now & then he would make the occasional reply which I didn't mind, until I started The Genesis Controversy, & then he had returned in full swing. The following is the result of that conversation.
Steve: Thank you for describing some of the facets of your indoctrination.
Brian: It is not "indoctrination." I am a presuppositional apologist, which means I view this in light of an ultimate standard. Everyone has an ultimate standard, even you. We all do, the question is which is it? In my case, it is ultimately God or the Word of God because it is only through a Biblical-Christian worldview that we can make sense of things like knowledge, logic, science, objective moral values, etc. in the first place. Plus, stating your position is not "indoctrination" in the first place. Besides such arguments are self-refuting. If stating a position is "indoctrination" then when you state your position at me, are you not trying to "indoctrinate" me? You would probably answer "no" & with good reason sense stating your position is not "indoctrination" to began with. Thank you for your reply. Blessings!
Steve: So does your infallible word of God have "dubious text"?
Brian: This question commits a fallacy in logic called the fallacy of the complex question. It is equivalent to asking, "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" The question is loaded, & should be broken up into more than one question. This question is no different. By adding the word "infallible" into your question the assumption is, "if the Bible is the infallible Word of God then it would have no dubious texts", but this begs the question "from who perspective is it dubious to?" God didn't inspire unclear passages in the sense he wants everyone to not understand what He is trying to communicate, but the passage might be "dubious" to us in the sense we might not have enough information thousands of years later to assess every meaning, but I do think he communicated his message so clear that the majority of Scripture can be read by us without eisegetically asserting theologies & assuming the Bible is written in some kind of "code" that needs to be puzzled over. So, in other words, your question needs to be broken up into two, namely: "Are there dubious texts in the Bible?" & "If yes, does this defeat the idea that the Bible is infallible?" The answer to question 1 is "yes", and the answer to question 2 is "no" sense any lack of clarity is on our part, not bc God fails to communicate His Word properly. Blessings!
Steve: So you do understand that the bible has dubious text. But you think it is your fault for not being able to understand it. Not that the translators following their word understandings are incorrect. You really don't understand my stance on the language of the Bible. Especially the Hebrew scriptures which have a dual understanding. One understanding for the slaves, which in modern times is people like you. And another understanding for those implementing the construction of the slave society that would have known both ways.
Brian: 1) Again, your question is the fallacy of the complex question. If by "dubious" you mean, "Did God inspire 'dubious text'?" then the answer is "no", he did not, but if your question is, "Are there texts in the Bible that can be "vague" or "ambiguous" from our perspective, then the answer is "yes", but even these are in small qualities, & they are easy to pinpoint. However, when the text says X, & it is very explicit (which is most of the Bible), how would that be "dubious." I don't think we would mean the same thing by the word. You seem to view the Bible as some kind of "code" that doesn't say what it means, but this requires good reasons which we had already established that you don't have. Your view of Scripture makes the entire Bible subjective, & any attempts to exegete the text properly & objectively pointless. 2) Again, I don't think you understand Presuppositional apologetics, & I understand the Bible just find. You're straw-manning me again, & placing words in my mouth that I didn't say. I use the grammatical-historical approach to the Bible. This is when you take things like context, background, type of literature being interpreted, word study, etc. into consideration as you're interpreting the text. The object of it is to find the meaning intended by the original writer. Since the Bible is a propositional text (a text with propositional claims), the writer had an intention upon writing the passage, therefore the meaning is objective. Also, God inspired the Scriptures with clarity. This is called the perspicuity of Scripture. This means the Bible isn't some kind of "code" that needs to be figured out, but rather it has a clear message that can be exegeted. It is no different than communication with most people. You understand what is being communicated to you through context, background, and an understanding of the language. It isn't complicated to understand. 3) I do understand your position, but I reject it. It fails to have any basis for it, & seems extremely opinionated. I'm not a "slave" as you mean it. Your view of the Hebrew language appears isolated to you. 4) We don't live in a "slave society" either. However, I think you might be missing the point that I'm making about all communication breaking down. Let's say you were right, this would mean that everything I am saying to you would have a duel meaning, right. I am the originator of this message. If I meant something different from what I am saying, or I meant something additional to what I am saying wouldn't I know about it? I can see why you don't offer any evidence for your claim. Such a wild & subjective theory would be void of any evidence & would be based on your own personal impressions. No wonder no respected Hebrew scholar would ever pick up on such a theory as this. 5) As I said in a previous post, maybe it is better to just agree to disagree. You clearly can't demonstrate your position, & all you are going to do is offer your opinions on the matter, which, unfortunately for you, especially since you shelter the full weight of the burden of proof, you need evidence to demonstrate it. Blessings!
Steve: I'm not here to satisfy a person that is a cult member and believes fairytales are reality. Just to tell you from the observant world what you have gotten yourself into. It's very common for members to defend their cults. And like the Scientologists your cult charges you alot of money to brainwash you. That's called stupidity in the real world. You are now responsible whether you continue or not.
Steve: Liberty University is not only a cult but a vile cult at that. "Liberty University threatens to punish students that report being raped "You should be ashamed of that place, yet you are not.
Brian: If you make the assertion, you bear the full weight of the burden of proof. That is a rule in rhetoric & is true for everybody. Could it be that the reason that you can't produce evidence is bc you don't have any? And yes, if you going to continue to make false allegations of accusing me of believing in fairytales & being a part of a cult I'm not actually a part of, or claiming Liberty University is a cult (according to you), then absolutely you need to produce the evidence! However, I don't think you have any. I'm starting to believe you were making stuff up before, granting truth to my suspicions. Btw, Christianity isn't based upon a "fairytale", whether it is based upon the historical reality of what God did in history, our salvation upon the cross, & the historical reality of Jesus' Resurrection from the dead.So, if I defend myself I must be a part of a cult? Lol! Everyone defends their belief system, even you! Ha! This is also self-refuting. If you are claiming someone is in a cult bc they defend their belief system, & you are in the process of defending yours, then does that mean that you're in a cult? Christianity isn't a cult, & believes things very differently from Scientology. Also, Christianity charges me no money to be a part of it. I can be a part of it without being charged even one red cent. Even Tithing & offerings toward Missions are not money that constitutes whether I am a part of Christianity or not. It doesn't even warrant whether I can be a member of a church or not. I am a Christian by my saving faith in the blood of Christ!That last part was an ad hominem fallacy. I am not "stupid" & neither is it "stupid" bc I don't agree with you. What you are suggesting is void of any evidence. Prove me wrong! Blessings!
Brian: Liberty University has never shamed anyone who claimed that they were raped! This is one of the reasons that I ask for evidence. It's bc you insist on slandering Liberty University's good name with no evidence or basis for what you are claiming! I have a mind to report you to Liberty University! Slander is illegal! Please get saved, or stop throwing out baseless allegations!
Comments