Responding Again to Rabbi Mordy  Dan, it was so nice of you to make a reply to my video. And actually, I want to commend you. You actually tagged me. There are a lot of people who try to reply to my video and don't have the courtesy to tag me. So, thank you for that. >> All right, let's see it. >> What is this? What are you trying to say? I've never seen that in other videos. Are you trying to say something about me? Is that where you're coming from? So, for about 3 years now, I've been adding that warning to every single video I make where I'm responding to somebody else's video. And I always put it on the first clip I'm providing of the other person's video. And I started adding it because I was getting pretty sick of seeing people engaging with response videos by mocking or criticizing somebody else's appearance or speech. And I consider that to be out of bounds. So, I started putting that warning on my videos. And if I see people just ignoring it, then I block them. And I think you only need one hand to count the number of times over the last 2,000 videos that I've made where I have accidentally omitted that warning. But that is something I've been doing for years now. And in the three or so years of putting that warning on videos, you are now the second person to mistake my warning not to personally attack other creators as a personal attack. >> Listen, we could go at length about this. The bottom line is all of Genesis 4 is irrelevant when you talk about Genesis 5. >> Yeah, I know. Because Genesis 5 is again the genealogy that's getting to Abraham. It gets to Noah. Those are the 10 generations of Noah. Of course, the Torah goes on tangents. It gives the genealogy of Asov. It gives the genealogy of Ishmael. It gives other genealologies. Sure. >> Okay. Well, that directly contradicts what you said in your previous video. And that's on you. That's not on me. And this still doesn't address the concerns, >> but for a purpose. Exactly like you said, the people who lived in tents, which we have to learn about because Jacob is called a person who dwells in a tent and the people who make the liar because David played the liar, etc., etc. So, there are reasons why the Torah goes off of tangents. That's true. >> So, this is a straw man fallacy that doesn't even acknowledge, much less actually engage my concern. My concern is not for explaining why the author of Genesis 4 would bother talking about Lamech and his three sons. that is your concern because you're the one who said all the genealogies do one thing and then I pointed out that this genealogy does not do that one thing and then you said well of course not all of the genealogies do the one thing that's not my concern that's your concern I was just pointing out the problems with your concern my concern is the fact that Genesis 4 had to have been composed after the flood and Genesis 4 directly contradicts the account of the flood because Genesis 4 talks about the three sons of Lamech as the ancestors of three separate people groups who are described as existing during the time when Genesis 4 was composed and if there was a global flood as the priestly and a non-priestly account insist they should not have been around because they are not descended from Noah and they should have been annihilated in the global flood cuz the text says so and so was the ancestor of all those who dwell in tents and keep livestock. That's talking about people who are doing that at the time Genesis 4 was composed. They shouldn't exist because the descendants of the three sons of Lamech should have all been destroyed in the flood. It's not saying, "Oh, these are the ancestors of these three people groups who don't exist right now, but should remind you of Jacob and David and so on." It's saying these people are around and the three sons of Lamech are the ancestors of these three people groups. And that just flatly contradicts the account of the flood. cannot have those three people groups in the time when Genesis 4 was composed and also have a global flood that killed everybody but Noah and his descendants. That just doesn't work. >> Your premise was that they're two different authors. Clearly, they're not. >> You have provided absolutely zero argument or evidence to support your assertion that they clearly were not two separate authors. And let me also say one other thing is that when I said you don't have an iota of what the Torah is talking about, I find it interesting that you wholesale disregard every Jewish piece of scholarship. >> This is entirely false. A lot of the scholarship that I rely on is written by Jewish scholars. >> You everyone calls you out. I made a video and everyone calls you out as the greatest scholar known to man. Scholar consensus. I don't think that's an accurate characterization of what happened here. I think what happened is that you made a video presuming to speak down to me and to dismiss me as knowing nothing about the Torah and then people called you out for rhetorically getting out over your skis. I don't think I saw anyone say that I was the best scholar ever. I'm very clearly not. I'm just somebody trying to represent the academic consensus on things. Where are the thousands of years of Jewish scholarship in your work? Jews have a tradition. We study this all the time. And for 4,000 years, we do have Jewish scholarship to wholesale ignore an entire people's scholarship on a work when for 4,000 years that is their life. I think it's a little bit saying that you're not complete when it comes to scholarly consensus. Any questions? Let me know. So, you've not even acknowledged, much less engaged my argument. You've just misrepresented it. And now you're trying to just unilaterally dismiss it all because I have committed the sin of failing to engage 4,000 years of scholarship when a lot of what I'm talking about is consensus established precisely by Jewish scholars. I think you're not talking about Jewish scholarship. You're talking about certain Jewish dogmas, which is no different from Christians telling me, "How dare I talk about the Trinity without engaging 2,000 years of Christian authoritative tradition?" That's just dogmatism. And as I hopefully have made clear, my channel seeks to put data over dogma. So, if you have data to which you can point within that scholarship that actually engages my concerns and shows that I'm wrong, by all means, point me to it. I will directly engage it. But to just say there's 4,000 years of scholarship and anything you say is illegitimate unless and until you directly engage all of it, that's just laughable rhetorical deflection. Do better. And the fit for this video is Adonai and his Asher., Responding Again to Rabbi Mordy, YouTube, 01kfba0sb3dwd4d4mcm8tf9hnr.