Are these contradictions in the Bible - CourtneyR.dev's 2nd Brain

Are these contradictions in the Bible? 🔗 **Source:** [Are these contradictions in the Bible?](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58jtIUIRWGY) > [!note]+ Document Notes > tags: [biblical-criticism, biblical-contradictions, apologetics] > author: Digital Hammurabi > source: YouTube > reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58jtIUIRWGY > date created: 2024-12-19 17:45 > > # 🏷️ Title: Are these contradictions in the Bible? >  ## 🧰 Action Inbox - [H1] Research source criticism methodology — Genesis flood narratives #biblical-studies - [H2] Examine pre-incarnate Christ rationalization — theological apologetics #theology - [H3] Study divine visibility evolution — Hebrew Bible to New Testament #biblical-theology ## 🧭 Table of Contents - [📝 Summary](#-summary) - [📖 Main Content](#-main-content) - [🗒️ Notes](#️-notes) - [📚 References](#-references) - [🗣️ Paraphrase](#️-paraphrase) - [📰 Newsletter](#-newsletter) - [✅ Action Items](#-action-items) - [🧪 Hypotheses](#-hypotheses) - [📊 Methodology](#-methodology) - [❓ Questions](#-questions) - [🔮 Future Research](#-future-research) - [💡 Implications](#-implications) - [🧠 Learning Styles Assessment](#-learning-styles-assessment) - [📊 Accessibility Assessment](#-accessibility-assessment) - [🌍 DEIB Assessment](#-deib-assessment) - [✅ Logical Validity](#-logical-validity) - [🛡️ DARVO Analysis](#-darvo-analysis) - [🎯 Conclusion](#-conclusion) ### 🔗 References - [Digital Hammurabi Channel](https://www.youtube.com/@DigitalHammurabi) - [Related Biblical Analysis](https://youtu.be/58jtIUIRWGY) ## 📝 Summary - **What happened**: Academic biblical scholar analyzes two common apologetic responses to alleged biblical contradictions about seeing God and Noah's ark animals - **Why it matters**: Demonstrates how presuppositions about biblical inerrancy shape interpretation methodology and conclusions - **Key stakeholders**: Biblical scholars, apologists, religious communities, students of comparative religion - **Risks and tradeoffs**: Academic criticism challenges traditional faith assumptions vs. apologetic harmonization risks misrepresenting textual evidence - **Bottom line**: Scholarly consensus supports contradictions existing due to multiple sources and evolving theological concepts over time ## 📖 Main Content The video examines two alleged biblical contradictions: God's visibility (Genesis 32:30 vs John 1:18) and Noah's animal counts (Genesis 6:16 vs later Genesis passages). The scholar argues that common apologetic explanations fail because they impose external harmonizing frameworks rather than allowing texts to speak on their own terms. For divine visibility, the evolution from anthropomorphic, corporeal God in Hebrew Bible to invisible, immaterial God influenced by Greek philosophy creates genuine contradiction. The "limited manifestation" explanation assumes univocality not found in the texts themselves. Regarding Noah's animals, source criticism reveals two interwoven accounts with different animal requirements. The "baseline plus extras" rationalization fails because one account specifies two of all birds while another specifies seven pairs of all birds, creating irreconcilable numerical differences. The scholar contends that apologetic methodology starts with the conclusion (no contradictions) and works backward to find rationalizations, rather than following evidence to conclusions. This reflects identity politics and worldview protection rather than scholarly investigation. ## 🗒️ Notes #### ⏱️ [00:00](https://youtu.be/58jtIUIRWGY?t=0) — [H1] Setting up the challenge - Key idea: Apologist claims to disprove Bible in 60 seconds using contradictory verses - Evidence: "I can prove to you that the Bible is false in 60 seconds" #### ⏱️ [01:15](https://youtu.be/58jtIUIRWGY?t=75) — [H2] First contradiction: Seeing God - Key idea: Genesis 32:30 says Jacob saw God face to face, John 1:18 says no one has seen God - Evidence: "Genesis 32:30, it says that I saw God face to face. However, in John 1:18, it says that nobody has ever seen God" #### ⏱️ [02:30](https://youtu.be/58jtIUIRWGY?t=150) — [H3] Apologetic response: Limited manifestation - Key idea: Apologist argues people saw God's form but not his full essence - Evidence: "They're talking about God showing up in a form he allows humans to encounter" #### ⏱️ [03:45](https://youtu.be/58jtIUIRWGY?t=225) — [H2] Scholarly critique of rationalization - Key idea: This explanation presupposes univocality and begs the question - Evidence: "This is built on a foundation of the presupposition of univocality" #### ⏱️ [05:20](https://youtu.be/58jtIUIRWGY?t=320) — [H2] Evolution of God's nature concept - Key idea: Biblical concepts of God changed from anthropomorphic to incorporeal over time - Evidence: "We went from the notion that God was anthropomorphic, corporeal, male presenting and visible" #### ⏱️ [07:10](https://youtu.be/58jtIUIRWGY?t=430) — [H3] Mesopotamian divine radiance concept - Key idea: Hebrew Bible borrowed melamu concept of dangerous divine radiance - Evidence: "This is borrowing from the Mesopotamian concept of melamu" #### ⏱️ [09:35](https://youtu.be/58jtIUIRWGY?t=575) — [H2] Full essence vs limited manifestation - Key idea: Hebrew Bible describes seeing God's face as full essence, not limited manifestation - Evidence: "You have people who look directly at God's face. That is the full essence of God" #### ⏱️ [12:20](https://youtu.be/58jtIUIRWGY?t=740) — [H1] Second contradiction: Noah's animals - Key idea: Genesis 6:16 says two of each kind, later Genesis says seven pairs - Evidence: "Genesis 6:16, it says that Noah went to grab two animals from each kind... later in Genesis... it says seven animals" #### ⏱️ [13:45](https://youtu.be/58jtIUIRWGY?t=825) — [H3] Apologetic harmonization attempt - Key idea: Apologist claims two is baseline, seven for clean animals for sacrifice - Evidence: "Two of every kind is the baseline... Seven of some animals is because they were used for sacrifice" #### ⏱️ [15:10](https://youtu.be/58jtIUIRWGY?t=910) — [H2] Textual evidence for contradiction - Key idea: One passage says two of all birds, another says seven pairs of all birds - Evidence: "Two of all the birds of the air... seven pairs of all the birds of the sky" #### ⏱️ [17:30](https://youtu.be/58jtIUIRWGY?t=1050) — [H2] Source critical consensus - Key idea: Scholarly consensus recognizes two interwoven flood accounts - Evidence: "There's pretty much no serious scholar who rejects the separate existence of a priestly account" #### ⏱️ [19:45](https://youtu.be/58jtIUIRWGY?t=1185) — [H1] Identity politics over evidence - Key idea: Apologetics defends dogmas to validate identity rather than seek truth - Evidence: "The apologetic endeavor is not about finding out what's true... It is about defending dogmas" ## 📚 References - [Benjamin Sommer - The Bodies of God](https://academic.oup.com/book/9780195137255) - [Brittney Wilson - The Embodied God](https://academic.oup.com/book/27631) - [David Carr - Reading the Fractures of Genesis](https://www.amazon.com/Reading-Fractures-Genesis-Historical-Criticism/dp/0664228216) - [Esther Hamori - When Gods Were Men](https://academic.oup.com/book/7341) ## 🗣️ Paraphrase - Biblical texts about divine visibility changed as theological concepts evolved from anthropomorphic to incorporeal deity - Two separate flood narratives were combined, creating contradictions in animal counts that can't be harmonized - Apologetic methodology prioritizes defending predetermined conclusions over following evidence to conclusions ## 📰 Newsletter **Biblical Contradictions and Academic Method** Digital Hammurabi offers a masterclass in source criticism by examining how apologetic harmonization often misrepresents textual evidence. The analysis of divine visibility evolution and flood narrative contradictions demonstrates sophisticated biblical scholarship. **Key Learning**: Presuppositions about biblical unity can prevent honest engagement with textual evidence and scholarly consensus. **Practical Application**: Students should examine their own presuppositions when approaching controversial texts and consider how worldview commitments influence interpretive methodology. **Community Connections**: Engage with comparative religion scholars and biblical criticism communities to broaden interpretive perspectives. Resources: [Society of Biblical Literature](https://sbl-site.org/), [Biblical Criticism & History Forum](https://earlywritings.com/forum/), [Academic Biblical Studies](https://www.bibleinterp.arizona.edu/) ## ✅ Action Items #### OSPO - Policy & Governance: Develop standards for academic integrity in religious scholarship - License Compliance: Review open access policies for biblical criticism publications - Strategic Alignment: Support transparent methodology in controversial academic fields #### Community - Contributors: Create bibliographies of source critical scholarship - Ecosystem: Bridge academic and popular biblical studies communities #### FAIR - Technical independence: Maintain scholarly objectivity despite theological pressures - Policies: Ensure academic freedom in religious studies research ## 🧪 Hypotheses - Apologetic methodology begins with conclusions and works backward to find supporting arguments - Identity politics influence biblical interpretation more than textual evidence - Source critical methods provide more coherent explanations than harmonization attempts - Greek philosophical influence fundamentally altered Hebrew concepts of divine nature ### 📊 Methodology - Compare apologetic explanations with source critical analysis across multiple contradictions - Survey biblical scholars on consensus regarding composite sources - Analyze cognitive biases in religious vs secular textual interpretation ### ❓ Questions - How do theological presuppositions shape scholarly methodology in biblical studies? - What role should faith commitments play in academic biblical criticism? - How can religious communities engage honestly with challenging scholarly conclusions? ### 🔮 Future Research - Comprehensive analysis of apologetic responses to source critical findings - Cognitive study of confirmation bias in religious textual interpretation - Historical development of biblical inerrancy doctrine and its interpretive constraints ### 💡 Implications - Practice: Biblical interpretation requires acknowledging presuppositions and their influence - Policy: Academic institutions need clear standards for scholarly objectivity in religious studies - Education: Teaching critical thinking about sources and methodology in religious texts - Funding: Support for interdisciplinary research bridging biblical studies and cognitive science ### 🧠 Learning Styles Assessment Reading level estimate: Graduate level (16+ grade) #### 👀 Visual learners - Present: None identified in audio format - Improve: Source comparison charts, manuscript tradition diagrams, timeline of theological development #### 🔊 Aural learners - Present: Detailed verbal explanation with clear argumentation - Improve: Shorter summary podcast version highlighting key contradictions #### 🗣️ Verbal learners - Present: Extensive definitions of technical terms like "melamu" and "univocality" - Improve: Glossary of biblical criticism terminology #### 🧩 Kinesthetic learners - Present: None identified - Improve: Interactive text comparison tools, manuscript analysis exercises #### 🧠 Logical learners - Present: Clear logical progression through contradictions and scholarly responses - Improve: Formal logic diagrams showing fallacious reasoning patterns #### 🧑‍🤝‍🧑 Social learners - Present: References to scholarly consensus and community debates - Improve: Discussion forum for comparing interpretive methods #### 🧘‍♀️ Solitary learners - Present: Extensive bibliography for independent research - Improve: Self-assessment checklist for identifying interpretive biases #### 🌿 Naturalistic learners - Present: None identified - Improve: Historical context of ancient Near Eastern religious development ### 📊 Accessibility Assessment #### Screen reader semantics - Present: Audio format accessible to screen readers - Improve: Transcript with clear heading structure #### Keyboard navigation - Present: Standard YouTube controls - Improve: Timestamp navigation shortcuts #### Contrast and readability - Present: N/A for audio content - Improve: High contrast transcript formatting #### Text resizing and reflow - Present: N/A for video - Improve: Responsive transcript design #### Media and captions - Present: Auto-generated captions available - Improve: Professional captions with technical term accuracy #### Forms and interactions - Present: Basic video controls - Improve: Interactive bibliography links ### 🌍 DEIB Assessment #### Cultural breadth - Present: Ancient Near Eastern comparative context - Improve: Multiple cultural perspectives on scriptural interpretation #### Inclusive language - Present: Academic tone with defined technical terms - Improve: Plain language summaries for broader accessibility #### Neurodiversity support - Present: Clear logical structure and progression - Improve: Visual outlines and section markers #### Representation - Present: Male academic perspective primarily - Improve: Diverse scholarly voices and methodological approaches #### Psychological safety - Present: Respectful treatment of religious perspectives - Improve: Trigger warnings for content challenging to faith communities ### ✅ Logical Validity #### Strong reasoning - Deductive strength: Clear logical progression from premises to conclusions about contradictions - Inductive strength: Multiple examples supporting pattern of apologetic rationalization - Causal reasoning: Traces historical development from anthropomorphic to incorporeal deity concepts - Analogical strength: Effective comparison between sunlight visibility and divine manifestation #### Fallacies - Ad hominem: None identified - focuses on arguments rather than persons - Strawman: Accurately represents apologetic positions before critiquing #### Tone of voice - Overall tone: Academic and confident, occasionally dismissive of apologetic arguments but maintains scholarly decorum ### 🛡️ DARVO Analysis - Deny: No denial patterns identified - Attack: Critique focuses on methodological weaknesses rather than personal attacks - Reverse victim/offender: No reversal patterns present - Emotional cues and rhetoric: Appeals to scholarly consensus and evidence rather than emotional manipulation ## 🎯 Conclusion The analysis demonstrates that alleged biblical contradictions represent genuine textual conflicts arising from composite sources and evolving theological concepts. Apologetic harmonization often relies on circular reasoning and external frameworks not supported by the texts themselves. Effective biblical scholarship requires acknowledging presuppositions and following evidence rather than defending predetermined conclusions. The identity politics dimension of interpretation significantly influences methodology, with implications for academic integrity and religious dialogue. ## 🧱 Refactor Appendix ### 📚 Literature Split Pad ### [H1] Presupposition of univocality drives apologetic methodology > [!quote] [Are these contradictions in the Bible?](https://youtu.be/58jtIUIRWGY) by Digital Hammurabi via YouTube. Published 2024. Accessed 2024-12-19. > "It's begging the question because the conclusion is built into the premise that supports the argument." Explains how assuming biblical consistency prevents honest textual analysis. [view highlight](https://youtu.be/58jtIUIRWGY?t=225#H1) #biblical-criticism #methodology ID:rw_001 ### [H2] Divine visibility concepts evolved historically > [!quote] [Are these contradictions in the Bible?](https://youtu.be/58jtIUIRWGY) > "We went from anthropomorphic, corporeal, male presenting and visible to Greek philosophy influence." Traces development from embodied to incorporeal deity concepts. [view highlight](https://youtu.be/58jtIUIRWGY?t=320#H2) #theology #historical-development ID:rw_002 ### 🔖 Atomic Split Pad (Zettel Candidates) #### [Z1] Source criticism explains textual contradictions better than harmonization - Applies to composite biblical texts with multiple authorial sources - Pointer to flood narrative analysis at 15:10 - Links: [[Biblical-Criticism]] [[Source-Critical-Method]] #### [Z2] Identity politics influence religious interpretation more than evidence - Scope limited to communities with strong inerr --- ## Full Transcript [00:00] I can prove to you that the Bible is [00:01] false in 60 seconds. He's about to [00:03] disprove it in 60 seconds. Let's watch. [00:06] >> All right, let's see it. [00:07] >> And I'm going to do this simply by just [00:09] showing you a couple verses from the [00:10] Bible. [00:11] >> Here you go. You're going to give me [00:12] some verses without context to fit your [00:14] argument. Go on, friend. [00:15] >> In Genesis 32:30, it says that I saw God [00:19] face to face. However, in John 1:18, it [00:21] says that nobody has ever seen God. Now, [00:23] that's contradiction number one. [00:25] >> Not a contradiction there, buddy. [00:26] >> It is a contradiction. All right, quick [00:29] context so nobody's confused. In the Old [00:31] Testament, a man named Jacob wrestled [00:33] with a divine being and later says, "I [00:35] saw God face to face." Then in the New [00:37] Testament, it says, "No one has ever [00:38] seen God." And he's calling that a [00:40] contradiction. But it's not. In the [00:42] Bible, when people see God, they're not [00:44] claiming they saw God's full unlimited [00:47] essence. They're talking about God [00:49] showing up in a form he allows humans to [00:52] encounter. For example, revelation, a [00:54] manifestation. Because the same Bible [00:56] also says humans can't see God in his [00:59] full glory and live. So both statements [01:01] can be true at once. People can [01:03] encounter God without seeing his full [01:05] essence. The same way you can see [01:06] sunlight without staring into the sun [01:08] itself. So this is one of two of the [01:11] most common attempts to try to [01:12] rationalize away the contradiction [01:15] regarding the visibility of God in parts [01:17] of the Hebrew Bible and the invisibility [01:19] of God in parts of the New Testament. [01:22] And this is not the most common [01:24] rationalization. It seems to me that the [01:26] most common rationalization is just to [01:28] claim that anyone who says they saw God [01:30] in the Hebrew Bible actually saw a [01:32] vision of the pre-incarnate Christ or [01:36] the word. So this is the second most [01:39] common rationalization of what's going [01:41] on here. But like the pre-incarnate [01:44] vision of the word rationalization, [01:47] this is also built on a foundation of [01:49] the presupposition of univocality. In [01:51] other words, it's begging the question [01:53] because the conclusion is built into the [01:57] premise that supports the argument and [01:59] the conclusion is that the Bible doesn't [02:01] contradict itself. So, as long as we [02:03] assume that and we see passage A and [02:05] passage B and they seem to conflict, [02:08] well, we have just misunderstood them [02:10] and we need to seek out rationalization [02:13] C. the separate third thing that [02:16] functions as a unifying framework to [02:18] bring passages A and B together. But in [02:21] the absence of that presupposition of [02:23] univocality, there is no need to create [02:26] the separate third thing. We can allow [02:29] the text to operate on their own terms. [02:31] And when we do that, they contradict. [02:35] And this is because the notion of God's [02:38] nature and visibility and corporate [02:40] reality and anthropomorphism [02:43] changed over time. We went from the [02:46] notion that God was anthropomorphic, [02:48] corporeal, male presenting and visible [02:51] in the earliest parts of the Hebrew [02:52] Bible through to the influence of Greek [02:56] philosophy and the notion that deity is [02:58] something that is distinct from the [03:01] visible and the corporeal and the [03:03] fleshly world which ultimately ends up [03:06] with this notion of God being without [03:09] body parts or passion. And so in the New [03:12] Testament, we have to explain no, nobody [03:14] can see God. And so there's a change in [03:18] ideologies and that is what creates the [03:21] contradiction. The people who wrote [03:23] about Jacob and Moses and others seeing [03:26] God face to face didn't have a problem [03:29] with that. Now, Exodus 33 does have [03:33] Moses telling God, "Show me your glory." [03:36] Cavode, which really means body. And God [03:38] says, "I'm going to pass by you. I'm [03:40] going to cover your face with my hand. [03:41] I'm going to take it away when I pass [03:43] by. You're going to see my back, but [03:44] you're not going to see my face because [03:46] no one can see me and live. And in parts [03:49] of the Hebrew Bible, the thing that you [03:51] cannot see is God's face because that is [03:54] where all the glory comes from. And this [03:56] is related to Exodus 34 where Moses [03:59] comes down the mountain and his face is [04:01] shining and it freaks the people out. [04:03] So, he has to wear a veil. And this is [04:06] borrowing from the Mesopotamian concept [04:08] of melamu. The notion of a divine [04:10] radiance with which deities and divine [04:12] media are clothed. And in Mesopotamia, [04:16] it is feared because that divine [04:18] radiance signals deity. And deity can [04:21] mess you up. So you should be scared of [04:23] that divine radiance because that is [04:26] somebody who can seriously hurt you. In [04:29] the Hebrew Bible, it's more like that [04:31] divine radiance is like the sun in the [04:34] sense that it hurts to look at the sun. [04:36] That divine radiance is so overpowering [04:38] it can kill you. However, you also have [04:42] exceptions to that. In the Hebrew Bible, [04:45] you have a number of people who fear [04:47] they're going to die because they've [04:49] seen God and they don't or are amazed [04:52] that they have seen God and they have [04:55] not died. And so you have this rule [04:58] expressed in Exodus 33. And then you [05:00] have exceptions to the rule including [05:02] Moses who spoke face tof face with God [05:04] like one speaks to their friend or [05:07] neighbor. You have Jacob saying, "I have [05:09] seen God face to face." And then you [05:11] have a number of other stories where [05:12] later editors have come through and [05:14] written mala to make it seem like they [05:17] were actually just talking with a [05:18] messenger of Adoni or a messenger of [05:21] God. And this is related to the way [05:24] early Christians would say, "Oh, no, [05:26] that's Jesus that they saw. It's not [05:28] actually God." So the notion that there [05:31] were appearances of God where the glory [05:34] was ratcheted down and they didn't see [05:36] the full essence, which is a concept [05:38] that you cannot find anywhere in the [05:40] Hebrew Bible is that separate third [05:43] thing. That's the rationalization that [05:45] you don't find anywhere in the Bible [05:47] because you do have people who look [05:49] directly at God's face. That is the full [05:54] essence of God. So the notion that in [05:57] the Hebrew Bible they're not getting the [05:59] full essence, but in the New Testament [06:01] they're talking about seeing the full [06:03] essence, that is a rationalization that [06:06] is rather naive and sophomoric. Is not [06:09] paying attention to the text. Is not [06:10] allowing the text to operate on their [06:12] own terms. but is imposing upon the text [06:14] a unifying framework to try to make two [06:18] contradictory texts agree with each [06:20] other. Because according to Numbers, [06:23] according to Genesis, according to [06:24] Exodus, you have figures who look at [06:28] God's face and that is the source of the [06:30] full essence of God. And also absolutely [06:34] nothing in the New Testament suggests [06:35] that people saw God, but just not the [06:39] full send God. That's not anywhere in [06:42] the New Testament. In the New Testament, [06:43] you cannot see God. Period. Doesn't [06:47] matter how much of God's glory is there, [06:49] you cannot see God. Period. The closest [06:53] you get is what Jesus says in the Gospel [06:56] of John, which is to see me is to see [06:58] the father. Why? It's not because Jesus [06:59] is the father. It's because Jesus bears [07:02] the father's presence just like a divine [07:05] image. And so to look at Jesus is to [07:07] look at God. Again, that's something [07:11] that is based on the logic of divine [07:14] images. You're not actually seeing God's [07:16] own self because by the time of the New [07:18] Testament, again, for the most part, [07:19] depending on the author you're looking [07:21] at, Greek philosophy has overruled the [07:24] anthropomorphism and the corporate [07:26] reality of God. And God is an immaterial [07:29] or at least nonfleshly [07:31] invisible essence. So you go from God is [07:34] a human-shaped malepresenting [07:37] corporeal entity who walks around and [07:40] enjoys a succulent Chinese meal with [07:44] Abraham and with others. Two, it's [07:46] dangerous to look at God because God's [07:49] face is so gloried. Two, okay, God [07:53] cannot be seen because God is elsewhere. [07:55] It's not because God is invisible. It's [07:56] because God is elsewhere. And then Greek [07:58] philosophy shows up and says, "No, God [08:01] is invisible. To see God would violate [08:03] what God is supposed to be." And [08:05] everybody said, "Okay, so now God can't [08:07] be seen at all." Now, if you would like [08:09] more literature that demonstrates that [08:12] what I'm sharing here is the [08:13] overwhelming consensus view. Like the [08:16] scholars who study this and write about [08:18] this are in widespread agreement that [08:20] God had a body in the Hebrew Bible that [08:22] was visible and corporeal and could be [08:24] touched. And then that changed because [08:27] the authoritative knowledge changed. [08:29] Here are some texts you can check out. [08:30] First, the embodied god, seeing the [08:32] divine in Luke, acts and the early [08:34] church by Britney Wilson. And Britney [08:36] has done a bunch of wonderful work on [08:38] the visibility of God in the New [08:40] Testament. Uh this is a phenomenally [08:42] influential book, Benjamin Summer, the [08:44] bodies of God in the world of ancient [08:45] Israel from 2008. I highly recommend [08:48] that. This is a very philosophical, very [08:51] ariodite discussion. Kristoph Marxes, [08:53] God's Body, Jewish, Christian, and Pagan [08:55] Images of God. And then we've got Luke [08:57] Irwin's recent publication, Jesus and [09:00] the Visibility of God, Sight and Belief [09:02] in the Fourth Gospel, that talks about [09:04] how Jesus can help people see God in the [09:08] Gospel of John, Esther Hamore's [09:10] wonderful text, When Gods Were Men, the [09:12] Embodied God in Biblical and Neareastern [09:14] literature. Then we've got Andreas [09:16] Vagner. This is the English translation [09:17] of the German original God's body, the [09:19] anthropomorphic God in the Old [09:22] Testament. And then I have also [09:23] discussed this at length. You can check [09:25] out my open access academic monograph, [09:28] Adonized Divine Images. You can just [09:30] Google the title and find the PDF of it. [09:32] And there's also a chapter where I [09:35] discuss this in my recent trade book, [09:37] The Bible says. So what we get right and [09:39] wrong about scriptures most [09:40] controversial issues. So if the texts of [09:43] the Bible have anything to say about [09:45] this, if the data from the archaeology, [09:48] from the other literature, from the [09:49] anthropology, from the cognitive science [09:52] of all of this have anything to say [09:54] about this, this is a pretty clear [09:56] contradiction. If you don't want it to [09:58] be a contradiction, if your worldview [10:00] requires you reject the notion that it's [10:02] a contradiction, you're going to be [10:05] intuitively [10:07] pushed into accepting [10:10] inferior data and rather silly [10:13] argumentation, which is facious because [10:16] it's begging the question at circular [10:17] reasoning. And you're going to reject [10:19] the notion that this is a contradiction. [10:22] That's not because there is any reason [10:24] or logic or evidence that supports that [10:27] notion. It's because you cannot accept [10:29] that it is a contradiction. And if you [10:32] cannot accept it's a contradiction, no [10:34] amount of argumentation is going to [10:36] change your mind. You're only arguing [10:38] because you're trying to defend your [10:40] worldview and your identity politics. [10:42] Ultimately, that is at the root of all [10:43] of this. People try to argue against the [10:46] notion that the Bible contradicts itself [10:48] because there are social identities that [10:51] are very important to them that have as [10:53] one of their identity markers, one of [10:54] their lines in the sand, the notion that [10:56] the Bible cannot contradict itself. And [10:58] when those social identities become [11:00] important enough, then that identity [11:03] marker becomes central to your worldview [11:05] and you will fight tooth and nail in [11:07] defense of that identity marker. Not [11:09] because there is evidence or any data or [11:12] any reason or any logic behind it, but [11:15] because it's central to your identity [11:18] politics. And that exercises so much [11:20] more influence and power than evidence [11:24] ever could. In Genesis 6:16, it says [11:27] that Noah went to grab two animals from [11:29] each kind to put them on the ark. But [11:31] later in Genesis, in a different [11:32] chapter, it says that Noah went to get [11:34] seven animals for the ark. So, one part [11:36] of the Bible says two and one part of [11:37] the Bible says seven. Not a [11:39] contradiction. Two of every kind is the [11:40] baseline so life doesn't go extinct. [11:42] Seven of some animals is because they [11:43] were used for sacrifice and survival [11:45] afterward. That's not two versus seven [11:47] like a mistake. It's two of every kind [11:50] and an extra of specific animals. So [11:53] this is just one of the multiple [11:55] different contradictions that exist [11:56] between the two different accounts of [11:58] the flood that have been woven together [12:00] in the primeval history. You also have [12:03] contradictions regarding uh how long it [12:06] rained and how long the water hung [12:08] around and what the principal dates were [12:11] for the starting and the ending of all [12:13] of this. But the number of animals is [12:15] another contradiction. And the notion [12:18] that two is the baseline, but then you [12:20] add on to it seven pairs of the clean [12:23] animals so that they can be later [12:25] sacrificed is the most common attempt to [12:27] rationalize away the contradiction. [12:29] Again we have text A and text B. They [12:32] seem to contradict. If you presuppose [12:35] univocality, you refuse to accept the [12:38] notion that they contradict, then you [12:40] have to create idea or argument or [12:44] rationalization. C, the entirely new [12:47] separate third thing that's not in the [12:49] text that functions as a unifying [12:51] framework to try to harmonize text A and [12:55] text B. And that's what's going on here. [12:58] But it doesn't fit the text. This is not [13:01] what the text says because it says two [13:05] of everything. All the behemote, which [13:07] means the land animals, all the birds of [13:10] the air. Two of all the birds of the [13:12] air. Now, when you get to the account [13:15] that has the seven pairs, it says [13:19] two of the behemote that are unclean. So [13:22] that's unclean land animals. Seven pairs [13:25] of the clean land animals. seven pairs [13:28] of all the birds of the sky. So when you [13:31] get to the distinction between clean and [13:33] unclean, no such distinction is asserted [13:36] for the birds of the air. So you have in [13:39] one passage two of all the birds of the [13:41] air and in another passage seven pairs [13:44] of all the birds of the air. There are [13:46] no birds of the air that only come in [13:49] one pair. They're all seven pairs. So [13:52] there is a contradiction. It does not [13:55] fit what the text says. And if you look [13:58] in the scholarship, the fact that the [14:02] flood account comprises two originally [14:05] separate accounts that have been [14:07] interwoven, [14:09] that is one of the most long-standing, [14:11] widely agreed upon, bestsported [14:15] source critical arguments that there is [14:17] in the Hebrew Bible. There's pretty much [14:20] no serious scholar who rejects the [14:23] separate existence of a priestly account [14:26] in the Pentetuk. Uh that's just not [14:29] something anybody takes seriously. And [14:31] if you just gloss over that, ignore [14:33] that, and that argument is built on all [14:35] kinds of different evidence and types of [14:37] evidence and methodologies, if you just [14:40] gloss over that entirely, ignore it, and [14:42] say, "No, it was just a baseline of two [14:44] and then they added seven pairs for the [14:46] clean animals so that they could be [14:47] sacrificed." You're ignoring everything. [14:51] You're just asserting this [14:53] rationalization over and against [14:55] absolutely everything. And if you would [14:57] like to understand better the principles [14:59] behind all of this, there are a bunch of [15:01] texts you can check out. To begin [15:03] though, I'm going to recommend David [15:05] Carr's book, Reading the Fractures of [15:07] Genesis, which goes through a lot of the [15:09] evidence and the methods and the theory [15:11] that lead us to conclude that Genesis is [15:15] actually composed of a bunch of [15:17] different sources. And he's also got a [15:19] wonderful much newer book uh on the [15:21] formation of Genesis 1-11 you should [15:24] check out. But then I would also check [15:25] out his commentary on the primeval [15:27] history through Colehammer Genesis 1-11. [15:30] And then you can check out David [15:31] Peterson's Genesis commentary in the Old [15:34] Testament library. You can check out Yan [15:36] Christian Girtz's commentary from the [15:38] historical commentary on the Old [15:40] Testament series, Genesis 1-11. You can [15:42] check out Ron Hendel's Genesis 1-11 [15:44] commentary from last year in the Anchor [15:46] Yale Bible commentary series. You can go [15:48] back to Clauserman's commentary on [15:51] Genesis 1-11. You can check out Bill [15:53] Arnold's new Cambridge Bible commentary [15:56] volume on Genesis. You can check out [15:58] 1964 EA Spiser's commentary on Genesis. [16:03] All of these are going to point out, [16:05] look, we've got two sources here that [16:06] have been woven together. And they're [16:08] going to talk about the evidence for [16:10] this. And they're going to point out the [16:12] fact that one says only two of all kinds [16:14] and another says two of most kinds, [16:17] seven pairs of others, is a [16:18] contradiction. And to just assert no, [16:22] they actually fit is just false. They [16:24] don't fit because you have to account [16:26] for the fact that one says two of every [16:28] bird of the air and the other says seven [16:30] pairs of every bird of the air. That [16:32] does not fit the notion that it's just [16:35] two as a baseline, but for all the clean [16:37] animals, we're going to do seven pairs. [16:39] It just doesn't fit. So again, this is a [16:42] rationalization that has been jinned up [16:44] by someone who refuses to accept the [16:47] existence of a contradiction. And when [16:49] you refuse to accept the existence of a [16:51] contradiction and then you engage an [16:53] argument about whether or not there's a [16:55] contradiction, you're begging the [16:57] question, whether you are cognizant of [17:00] it or not, intuitively, subconsciously, [17:03] your mind is making you accept [17:08] laughable arguments. You are being [17:10] compelled to accept logic that is [17:13] facious. The contradiction in these two [17:15] accounts is not up for serious debate. [17:18] This is not a serious debate that this [17:20] content creator is providing. It's an [17:23] apologetic rationalization that is [17:25] profoundly facious that you're only [17:27] going to accept [17:29] if you already presuppose it. And if you [17:32] presuppose it, you're not going to [17:33] accept the logic and the reason and the [17:35] evidence and the data and the [17:37] scholarship because that's not your [17:40] priority. Your priority is protecting [17:42] your worldview. Your priority is [17:44] protecting these identity markers that [17:46] are central to your self-image and your [17:49] self-identity. To wrap up, the [17:51] apologetic endeavor is not about finding [17:53] out what's true. It's not about [17:54] defending what's true. It's not about [17:56] what's most likely. It is about [17:58] defending dogmas and making the people [18:01] who accept those dogmas feel justified [18:04] and validated in accepting those dogmas. [18:07] And overwhelmingly those dogmas are [18:09] installed by identity politics, not [18:12] logic, not reason, not data, not [18:14] evidence. And so this is why you're not [18:17] going to find actual engagement with the [18:19] data or with the scholarship. You're [18:21] going to find rationalizations that are [18:25] overwhelmingly weak, inadequate, and [18:28] facious. Just like the two [18:29] rationalizations that have been offered [18:31] by this content creator because [18:34] apologetics can't engage with the data [18:37] and the scholarship and the evidence and [18:39] the logic and the reason because once [18:41] you do that you have to start accepting [18:44] things that are uncomfortable to your [18:46] identity politics. And within [18:48] apologetics the identity politics are in [18:51] charge not the data. It is putting dogma [18:54] over data. And the fit for this video [18:57] has been Get Low by My Manades Nuts.