Okay.
>> Oh, is this here? Yeah.
>> Hi. How are you?
>> Doing well. Doing well. Who are we
talking to?
>> That's good. Uh, my name is Bin Yammen.
I am a religious Jew.
>> Okay.
>> Uh, I believe that Judaism is true
because I believe that there's enough
evidence to believe in it.
>> Really?
>> And even Yeah. Mhm. So, e even though I
understand you have your um your own
objections from the scientific
standpoint,
I believe that Judaism has sufficient
answers uh to your questions and enough
evidence to believe in them.
>> So, you mean that you you believe the
Old Testament to be literally true, word
for word?
Um
>> did you listen to this whole show?
Well, just I just want to make sure
we're on the same page. Is that the
case?
>> Um, so I I believe along with the Old
Testament, there is a oral law that
comes along with it that explains the
words of the Old Testament. So I don't
think the Old Testament can be taken at
face value. No.
>> So you're taking oral Torah
>> over the written Torah.
>> Uh, no. I I think they were both given
out Sinai. They're both God's word. And
I think you need the oral Torah to
interpret the written Torah. Like for
example, Deuteronomy 6 um 68 or 67 says
that you should wrap totapos on your
arm. This cannot be understood without
some oral equivalent because that word
totapose has no meaning. It doesn't
explain what this thing is. So I think
it has some um uh oral explanation for
all the verses within the within the
Torah.
>> Okay. So it what how do you deal with
the fact then that even if there is an
oral Torah which is just anybody's
talking
um and you've got the written Torah and
that's
wrong about everything like absolutely
wrong about practically everything back
to front scientifically and historically
ethically and morally. The written Torah
is totally [\h__\h] How do we even verify
an oral Torah that tells everything
correctly?
Well, if you're making an eternal
critique on my beliefs, then I would
just answer that the oral Torah was also
given at Sinai. It has the same
authority as the written Torah. I I
agree with you. the Torah that is the
written Torah that is absolutely wrong
that describes the earth as flat
>> that that completely [\h__\h] up biology
that that that advocates horrible
atrocities all of this that that can't
be defended at all that has equal
authority with the oral Torah.
>> Well, what's your standard of
interpretation for the for the written
Torah? How can you take this text at
face value when it has an oral
equivalence for the written to our
apologies?
>> Well, I don't how do I how do we even
how would I even verify?
>> Give us an example of something that you
acknowledge is ridiculously hopelessly
false in the written Torah and tell us
how the oral version salvages that. Give
us an example
>> like on a face value. How I what I think
is ridiculous on a face value.
>> Well, the whole thing's it's ridiculous
top to bottom. So, I mean, just take
your pick. Yeah. At face value. The face
value the written written version,
written scripture, and then tell us how
the oral tradition salvages it, you
know, because I don't know what you're
talking about.
>> I can do that. And yeah, I I will
respond. I just want to say I want to
bring up some what I believe are proofs
the validity of the Torah, but I will
respond to what you said. So I think
that numbers 15:32-36
cannot be understood as just without a
moral uh without an oral equivalent
because according to the plain
understanding of the the verse a person
was doing what he thought was okay and
God killed him on the Sabbath for no
reason. Um while there are there are
there's an easy internal way to
understand this with the oral law. I
think that it's indefensible um just
based off of the written word alone.
>> Okay. But so this isn't really what
we're talking about here, right? is
you're talking about stories from which
you can devise a moral code. And I mean
Arin did bring that up and I do agree
that it's morally indefensible, but
we're talking more about like how the
universe developed and life and we're
talking about things that brush up
against the scientific understanding. Um
so since it's scientifically
indefensible and categorically wrong
about everything it says from a
scientific standpoint, tell us how the
oral tradition salvages a scientific
inaccuracy in the Bible. That's what
that's what we're kind of trying to talk
about.
>> Sure. So, I'll tell you some some things
that the oral tradition um resolves. For
example, uh for uh you you say that
according to the plain understanding of
the Bible, the earth is flat. But that
was not never the understanding
according to the ages. These sages who
had the oral tradition, who knew on how
to understand the text, always
understood this the earth was a sphere.
There's a there's a Talmud about this
where they explicitly say that the earth
is a sphere. Then why does the Bible why
does the written Torah say otherwise?
>> Why does uh again because you according
to your subjective understanding of the
verse
>> objective not not dependent on my own
personal opinions but dependent upon the
facts outside of them the facts outside
of my personal opinions which makes it
objective not subjective.
You may know Hebrew but I know English.
>> Okay. So this is how objective and
subjective they're different. I'm
talking about objective not subjective.
>> Yeah. So if if you would agree that two
people can read the same thing and
understand it differently then any
interpretation of the Bible would just
be
>> what happens when we get three or 18 or
what happens when it's not just the
number of people but when they can show
the etmology of the language or when
they can show the data that proves the
point then one person can show that 18
people are wrong
what then
>> so you you can show you can show via
etmology why like Zechariah 8:3 is
saying the earth is flat I don't I think
that's uh how what about in Job
>> what is it 39:14 I think when Job him
when God himself
>> says that the earth takes the form of a
of a of a seal of of of wax under a seal
which what is that shape it's a flat
disc with a bit of topography on it and
that's just one example my friend
Lawrence Eupo who's a Bible scholar
himself wrote a wrote a made a a video
like a 45minute video showing dozens of
different places in the Bible that
always consistently only ever describe
the earth as flat. Always look, never an
indication of a sphere. Every and I've
got I've got other things that I can
contribute to that where everything
literally everything that the Bible says
about the Earth in relation to the rest
of the cosmos is wrong. Demonstrabably
flatout wrong. The sun is not the sun is
not bigger than all the other stars. The
the moon is not the same size as the
sun. The stars are not something
different than the sun. The stars do not
have personalities and cannot come down
to earth to do battle with a human
being. Well, I'm sorry. That's a
Christian thing. You wouldn't know about
that one, so I'll leave that one alone.
>> But so the the point is where are you
getting this oral the the oral teaching
and and how does it rectify any of that?
Like we're still we still haven't gotten
this answer here. like if you want to
bend over backwards and deny the
illegitimacy scientifically speaking of
everything in there.
>> Um,
help us out here. Where are you getting
this other stuff?
>> So, I'll answer both of your questions.
I'll answer because one is external, one
is internal. So, I have no reason why
not to grant uh sorry, why to grant that
Job is literal there. Job also says he
suspends the earth over nothing. That's
that's something you would agree with
that the earth is not held up by
anything which was an ancient belief.
Uh, says nothing about the shape itself
and says that it's held up on pillars so
that it will not move.
>> Yeah, I didn't hear anything about a
sphere today.
>> But
>> yeah, and the Bible is also depicted as
the largest thing in the universe
>> covered by a firmament that we know does
not exist. And the sun and the moon and
the stars are not contained within where
the firmament would have been if there
was a firmament. And there's no water
above where the firmament isn't. So the
fact that the written Torah is totally
wrong does not justify an oral Torah.
We're still waiting for you to explain,
>> right?
>> So So I'll I'll explain, but I I just
want like a minute to explain because
it's this is important. So the the
you're doing two things right now. One,
you're making an internal critique,
meaning that how can you understand with
the oral tradition what these verses are
saying? And I would say that these
verses are metaphorical. The
understanding of the people of the sages
was always based off these verses too
was always the pro uh the prominent
scientific view. Uh in fact we even
affirm uh the big bang. It says that
before what before creation the the
earth was smaller than the pupil or the
world was smaller than the pupil of
one's eye. And second off as to your
external critique where do we get this
oral tradition from? Um, we can point to
oral tradition from, you know, from the
times of the Christian Bible, from the
the second temple period. Obviously, the
further you go back, the less evidence
you have. Um, but we can point to like
to uh the the toillin in the Kuman
caves. We can point to the the
references to of it in the even the
Christian Bible, which I'll use as
evidence because it's
>> still waiting for an example, man. Where
where in the oral tradition does it
correct a scientific inaccuracy in the
in the written version? Still waiting
for an example. Well,
so I I think you're you're kind of
begging the question by assuming that
there's scientific inaccuracy in the
first place. And what I mean by that
because your interpret
>> we just told you how all of it is
unbelievably and indefensibly wrong.
It's there's no there's no fallacies
here. It is objectively incompatible
with reality and what we know to be
factually true scientifically.
>> Is the sun the same size as the earth?
>> Is the sun smaller? Oh, excuse me. Is
the sun the same size as the moon? And
is the sun the you know smaller than the
earth?
>> No. But I don't
>> he knows it's not. I mean we don't need
to go down the list again. The point is
you acknowledge that all of that is
wrong. And so you tried to pivot to like
okay these are metaphors. So beyond the
question of like why would it be full of
the these misleading metaphors? Fine if
you want to go that way. But again I'm
still waiting for you. You keep pivoting
to this oral tradition and I'm I'm
asking now a third time. Give me an
example. What did he who said it? What
did they say? And how does it correct
and uh correct an inaccuracy and and put
it in a in a in a more believable
context? I I I'm still waiting for that
example.
>> And I I want to I want to clarify what I
said when I said you're begging the
question. What I meant is your
subjective according to your subjective
understanding of the text that you make
based off of your own understanding.
You're saying that there's scientific
inaccuracy. But what how am I
interpretive understanding of the
demonstrably false statements that we
can show are factually false because of
the facts the sun and the moon are not
the same size. The sun is not the sun is
not smaller than the earth. These are
>> if someone says this car is red. Do I
have a subjective interpretation of
that? No. It says the car is red. That's
they meant the car is red. So, you can
say it's a metaphor and then and then
point to something else that explains
how the car is red. It didn't really
mean the car is red. But it's not my
subjective interpretation when I say,
"Oh, he said the car is red." That's so
he means the car is red. Right? There's
nothing to interpret there. when you
when you're dealing with a text like the
Bible which commonly uses like a poetic
language like in Mika uh Micah 5:7 which
says that the the remnant of Jacob will
be like a lion among the uh you know
among the beasts of the forest meaning
we're going to be consumed by all the
nations. So yeah you can't take a
objective understanding of the like you
yourself can't can only make it a
subjective understanding of the text
because you don't have any traditions of
the people that wrote it. Now again, why
why ought I take your understanding that
when the Torah says that the world by
the way uh the the Talmud and I think
Sanhedrin says that the six day thing is
not literal and this comes before the
understanding that the world was uh was
much older. So this is you know it's
significant because it's written in
>> Yeah. It was written by people who had
no idea about anything at all.
>> So where does the oral tradition come in
that salvages it? Huh?
>> And that's why they got everything
wrong.
Well, yeah, but they're religious Jews
in the sixth century who have no idea
how old the earth is, and they're
writing that it's not meant to be taken
literal. So, that show, you know, that
clues you in. They're they have no
reason not to believe
>> clues you in started this
>> Torah is wrong
>> about everything that the written Torah
is wrong about because we I don't know
how well Dave knows this but I mean I
can I can talk to you for a long time
about the things the written Torah got
wrong where he was asking Dave was
asking you for to show somewhere where
the or where we can verify that the oral
Torah whatever the [\h__\h] that means
corrects an error in the written Torah.
Are you just going to give me where a
relatively recent rabbi said something
to try to correct an earlier error?
>> Remember, we're trying to get from an
acknowledgement that everything in the
in the written Torah is wrong to Judaism
is true. That's what you started this
with. So, we're we're on the same page
that everything is wrong in there. So,
now we're waiting for you to get us from
the everything is wrong to the Judaism
is true. And I'm still waiting for
something.
>> According to your subjective
understanding, it's wrong. I agree. But
you don't know how to understand the
Yours is the subjective understanding.
Ours is the objective. Quit accusing us
of having your problem. You have your
problem. You deal with your problem. We
don't have your problem. Our position is
our
quit making the false accusations.
>> If you want to have communication, quit
projecting your own [\h__\h]
But why should I grant your
understanding is objective? You haven't
given me a good reason to. I
>> I did give you several good reasons.
Yes. Things we can objectively verify
are not true in the Bible. This is not
my subjective understanding.
>> The sun and the moon are lights that are
this that they're the same size that the
stars are are are fixed in the
firmament. That there are windows in the
firmament and water above where the
firmament isn't. No, this
>> reading stuff literally is not a
subjective interpretation. It's just a
reading it literally, right? So if you
want to say that that it's metaphorical
and you're admitting that it's just that
they had no idea what anything was.
You've admitted that multiple times now.
Then you're agreeing that we're going
from having no idea.
>> So how do we get from there to
>> objectively wrong? Our position is
objective, not subjective. So quit
trying to paint us
>> with with the brush of your own failure.
>> Okay. No, that because you are assuming
I I want to be very clear. Let me
clarify my argument. Okay. I
>> Yeah, you're going to tell me I'm
assuming something. So, yeah. Be very
careful what you say next.
>> Okay. I think correct me if I'm wrong.
Okay.
You are looking at the Bible. You are
looking at verses like the sun is the
same size of the as the earth and you're
saying how, you know, I'm taking it
literally. How can that be true? And I'm
I'm coming back to you. I'm saying
that's not meant to be taken literally
and I have an understanding
>> if it says something that's factually
false. The defense of that is not that
it well you weren't supposed to read it
as true. Yeah. People think you're
supposed to read it as true.
>> So that's objectively false and people
are being misled by it. But now you want
to say you want now you want to say that
your religion which is based on this
entirely fictitious document
>> is somehow vindicated by an oral Torah
that we can't check.
>> Right?
>> What is the oral Torah? And I'm now
siding with with Dave here completely.
Give us an example that we can go
objectively verify the oral Torah.
Correct.
>> What does the oral thing say about the
size of the sun and the moon? How does
it justify the objectively erroneous
thing in the written tradition? Does it
say anything? Does it does it help us
out there?
>> Huh?
>> Yeah. So, I I'll give you an example
that you're uh you you'll have to look
it up. I apologize. I can't quote the
original source off the top of my head.
The the Talma Yurushami says that the
the earth is uh shaped like a ball. You
can look that up right now. It'll this
is in this is written by people in the
fourth or third century. So, it's
significant
>> because The earth was established to be
a sphere in the 2n century BC.
And you're now going six centuries after
that to say that 600 years after science
verified that the earth is spherical
that some rabbi somewhere said, "Oh, our
ancient document was totally [\h__\h]
wrong."
>> So, let me just say, "Yeah, I was wrong
and it's really a sphere." That's that's
your argument.
>> Yeah. Again.
Again. So I'm if you're internally
critiquing my beliefs,
>> how am I internally critiquing?
>> Because you're saying that according to
your understanding, this doesn't make
sense.
>> Well, what what is the what is the
objective fact? When was the earth
verified to be spherical?
>> 2 century BCE.
>> Eerosines.
>> A little before. Yeah. I mean classical
Greece at the at the at the at the very
least.
>> Yeah. at least by
>> document in a documented way in class.
>> So now you're going six centuries after
that.
Do you see how it's not it's not not
impressive to that 600year-old news
somebody finally admits yeah it's a
sphere science proved that 600 years ago
the Bible that was the Bible that was
written at about the same time is wrong.
>> Are you internally or externally
critiquing my beliefs? I'm using
objective fact, right? That things we
can both verify.
>> You're making a critique, right?
>> How am I making a critique? These are
objectively verifiable facts that we're
talking about. You said you have a
written Torah and an oral Torah. The
written Torah is deadass wrong about
everything, but somehow the religion
based on it is completely true for
reasons that you refuse to provide.
>> How can I make a critique any other way?
>> Okay. I I'm trying to So there are two
You can make an external critique or an
internal critique. So are you affirming
my views or like are you saying that
this doesn't work within your worldview?
This is contradicting itself.
saying that I don't understand.
>> What do you think my world view is?
>> You're just
I don't want to be fooled. I My
worldview is that I don't want to be
fooled into believing anything that is
not evidently true.
[snorts]
>> Okay. Well, I mean I I just want to
point out I it's kind of up to me to
prove it to be true and not you to come
up like I I want to I I think you're
being a little bit dishonest. I'm not
trying to to insult you, but
>> be very careful about the next thing you
say.
>> Yeah.
>> Okay. Okay. Like you're you're jumping
to this is the interpretation. This is
the inject objective interpretation of
the verse. This I'm going to take it as
literal.
>> We're just telling you what the [\h__\h]
thing says, dude. We're just telling you
the words that are in it and how they
and how they're wrong. So if you offer
an alternate interpretation from
something else,
this is not just our opinion. This is
[\h__\h] you can look up yourself to verify.
Objective, not subjective. Doesn't
matter what you feel about it. It says
what it says. The earth is objectively
round. Yes. I'm saying I'm saying your
understanding of the verse is sub is
subjective. It's based off of how you
read it and how you understand it.
>> I read it literally. Does it say the
thing or not? Is the statement that it's
making true or false?
>> Verifi objectively verifiable.
Is there a firmament with windows in it
that lets the w the air the the rain in
from the waters above the firm and and
that the sun and the moon are inside the
firmament which means the rain comes
from above the sun.
>> Is any of that true?
>> Literally I
>> the point is that if we're talking if
we're talking about the shape of the
earth what we're trying to make you
understand is that when it was when the
Torah was written they didn't know that
the earth was a sphere. So they didn't
write that. They thought it was flat.
And then hundreds and hundreds of years
later after it was firmly established
empirically that the earth is a sphere.
That's what you're going to to claim
some kind of oral tradition that makes
Judaism true when it's just some people
who later on learned that the earth is a
sphere and said it out loud. And that
doesn't in any way justify the validity
of the Torah because it's still wrong.
>> In order to say that you have to assume
that the verse is to be taken literal.
Can you give me one good reason why I
should take the verse as literal? So if
we don't take the verses literally then
we don't take the verses. If it doesn't
mean what it says and it doesn't matter
what it says and it doesn't matter what
it means then [\h__\h] it. Why do we even
have it? So how is the religion based on
understand
>> based on lies that you're not even
supposed to listen to? That's that's
we're tell disregard the entirety of the
Bible.
>> How does that follow? How does that
follow? You just told me that it doesn't
mean what it says and it doesn't matter
what it means because taken literally
an ad hoc justification. You can go back
and say it meant anything that you
wanted it to mean, right? It just you
can say, "Oh, well, I'm going to
interpret it to mean what we now know to
be true because I say so."
>> Your I'm sorry. I'm sorry, Dave.
>> Your understanding is subjective. It's
based on your feelings. It's not based
on the external facts. Based on the
external facts because ours is objective
and yours is subjective. Your problem,
not ours.
>> I I reject that because if you're
internally making a critique on my
religion, my
>> externally I'm doing it as externally as
I possibly can. I'm even putting it up
to peer review. I argue with believers
every goddamn day for the the last
couple decades. Okay? I'm being as
external about this as I possibly can
be. You are finding out now an internal
pain somewhere around the colon area
when you realize how you how badly
you're doing at this.
>> Can you concede that internally my
religion is consistent?
>> No.
>> Not in any capacity. Not in any capacity
is your religion consistent.
>> Can you give me one thing that isn't
consistent?
>> I think I already have given you several
>> done the list like a dozen times. can
add to the list. I've got an awful lot
of experience. We could talk about an
awful lot of things that are wrong with
your religion. Do you want to just widen
the gamut and do everything wrong with
Judaism or can you answer Dave's
question
>> to show you show him something you got
right?
>> Look, here's let's let's make it nice
and simple. Let's make it nice and
simple so that we don't have we can
let's use an analogy here. I wrote down
in a book my car is red. And then we
find out later that no, it's not. It's
actually blue. And you're trying to
argue that that the the the book where I
wrote the my car is red is true. It's
true. Well, that's a thing that's wrong.
So, you can argue, well, we don't want
to interpret my car is red literally. It
was a metaphor. He actually meant blue.
Um, and so we have this they have this
oral tradition from somebody who after
the fact saw the car and said, "Oh, no,
the car is blue." And he meant the car
is blue. Uh, but he wrote the car is red
because it's it's poetic. It's more
poetic that way. Um, do you understand
how that doesn't make any [\h__\h] sense
>> again? So you I don't think you
understand what I'm trying to say. Okay,
this first off
>> I made it as simple as humanly possible
for you, dude. You are you are equating
the Bible with the statement the car is
red. So when the Bible speaks in poetic
language, I'm telling you it's not meant
to be taken literally. All right.
>> Okay. So don't take the car is red
literally, but we're still arguing that
the book that contains the car is red is
true. So, what oral tradition or
whatever you're talking about are you
going to uh justify retroactively that
the car is red is somehow true even
though we know it's blue, right? How are
we going to what's how are we going to
get a different interpretation that that
somehow still validates the religion
based on the book that says the car is
red?
>> And if you can't answer his question,
I've I've got another one that goes back
to the beginning of what you said.
So, so again this I would say you're
assuming the oral tradition came later.
Uh I again if you're internally
critiquing me, I would say it came from
Sinai. Um but if you want to give me an
example of something uh sorry if you
want me to give you an example of
something uh that you know is godly that
that proves the oral tradition is from
God. I could you I could point you to
like Nida 52 which says explicitly that
there's not one single fish on the
entire planet Earth that has scales and
not fins. I believe or maybe it's the
other way around. This is scientifically
proven to be true. There is not one
single fish on the entire planet Earth
that you will find that has scales. I
want to make sure scales and not
>> So you think that people knowing a thing
about what fish look like is a proof of
a an entire relationship.
>> Isn't that a reference to lobsters?
Isn't that a That's a reference to
crustaceians, right?
>> No. like you're you're forbidden to eat
the the the the the fish without fins
that have scales, which has been
popularly identified as crustaceian. So,
you can't eat shrimp scampy or lobster
thermodor.
>> But also, every fish has to have scales
and fins.
>> But there, you know, that there are fish
without scales, right?
>> Lots of them.
>> But there there's no fish there is no
fish that has scales but not fins.
Except for the crustaceians that I just
mentioned. So again,
>> do not fins,
>> right? Crustaceians have the scales, but
not the fins. So regardless regardless,
we're still looking for something true.
We're still looking for something that
was supposed to be true about your
religion. And you just quoted a you just
quoted part of the oral excuse me you
just quoted part of the written Torah
that you've already told us
>> cannot be taken seriously. It's supposed
to be read metaphorically. It doesn't
mean what it says and it doesn't matter
what it says. It doesn't matter what it
means.
>> Yeah.
>> What is the oral and how the important
this important part the important part
this is the important part. How do we
verify that your oral Torah is true?
Because you said at the beginning
something that I know you cannot defend
and I think you know it too. You're
calling me dishonest but you know this
too. You said you had evidence that
Judaism is true. No you don't.
>> Well I mean you started I mean sure I
could point to like arguments the
arguments from prophecy. I could point
>> but you don't have evidence do you? They
always go to arguments instead of
evidence and then the arguments are
never logically valid.
>> I'm asking for evidence. So yeah,
evidence is
>> I'm not asking for logically facious
arguments.
>> I asked for evidence.
You said you had evidence, not
>> evidence makes something more likely to
be true.
Evidence is a fact that is positively
indicative of and/or exclusively
concordant with one available position
or hypothesis over any other.
>> Okay. So would you agree that
>> would you agree that if I could provide
something that makes my position more
likely to be true, it's evidence, right?
>> If it's a fact, if it's something we can
verify to be true, can you show me
anything? If can you anything that we
can objectively
just look it up and verify that it is
true that is also supportive of your
position over any alternate possibility?
>> Is it objectively true that the the Jews
in 70 AD were scattered throughout the
lands?
>> Is this something that we can just look
up and find out?
>> Yes, 100%.
>> Okay. You understand that? That's what
objective land. What are you talking
about?
>> We can look at regardless how we feel
about it.
>> We can check the facts and find out.
Okay.
>> 100%. 100%.
>> It's a very vague claim.
>> Yeah.
>> Look up Jewish diaspora. Yeah, you can
do that.
>> Okay.
>> So, so people went places.
>> That's the claim.
>> Yeah. Yeah.
>> Vikings went places, too. But that
doesn't prove Odin. As a matter of fact,
it's an interesting
>> I have a genealogy. My my family my my
immediate family is Mormon, but my my
Greek, you know, my ancient family was
Nordic. And in our genealogy, you know,
Mormons do genealogies. I actually have
documents recording great ancestry in
the second century from with Odin and
Freya of Asgard in my genealogy.
>> Not even kidding.
>> Could I could I finish my argument?
Okay. Could we we agree that the Bible
was mainly finished by the year se like
that the Bible was not edited. There's
no historians widely believe the Bible
stayed the same from 70 AD onwards.
>> No, I do a regular Bible study with with
Bible scholars and you know like people
that not only speak Hebrew, not people
who not only speak Hebrew but al also uh
Aramaic and can read um what is it? um
Assyrian kaoiform and yeah they I don't
think they would agree with that
>> they they wouldn't agree that after the
the spread of all of the Jewish people
around the entire so they
>> what I hear every week is that what I
hear every week is that every part of
the Bible was rewritten over and over
again and we no idea how many times or
by how many different people but nothing
stayed as it was for any considerable
length of
Well, I'm not talking about like Mark 16
uh 9.
>> But it wouldn't matter, would it?
Because that's the oral Torah, which
we've already conceded is completely
wrong. So, it doesn't matter what it
says.
>> Okay. Wait, actually, never mind. Um I
we have the Dead Sea Scrolls for this. I
apologize. So, the Dead Sea Scrolls.
>> Okay. Because one of the one of the guys
on my show is Dr. Kip Davis, who's an
expert on the Dead Sea Scrolls.
>> Sorry. the the Dead Sea Scrolls verify
that um the B the Bible was largely
finished including all of its prophecies
in the year uh 70 AD. Correct.
>> 70 AD. [sighs]
Okay.
>> Yes.
>> The Bible. But yeah, I would I would
accept that. Yeah. [clears throat]
>> If you're talking about if you're
talking about the Hebrew Bible. Yes.
>> Yeah. The Hebrew Bible. Obviously, the
the Action Bible changed a large amount,
but the Hebrew Bible stayed uh largely
the same. So I I can point to the
argument from prophecy
which is evidence which you might say
it's not ob not not uh you know
>> if it's not an objectively verifiable
fact then it's not
>> object you would concede that it's
objectively verifiable
>> the show how am I going to concede that
it's objectively verifiable.
>> So you you defined objectively
verifiable as like I could look up a
Google search and I would see this is uh
you know immediately true.
>> That's what you that was your
definition. a little more complicated
than that. But I'm still waiting for the
punch line here. You're saying you're
talking about the timeline of uh this
stuff getting written and and and then
what what's uh what are we leading up to
here?
>> Yeah, let's get to the point.
>> Punch line. Uh the Bible clearly
predicts a second Jewish exile before
the Messiah comes. This was
>> But it was only meant to be taken
metaphorically. So it doesn't matter
what it says.
>> There's an oral Torah that corrects all
of this, but you just won't show us how
to know that. But also but also come on
man like have a higher standard than
like there's like does it say like there
will be a war somewhere uh weather will
happen people will go places like come
on dude
>> very clear extremely clear
>> there will be wars and rumors
>> all peoples have been exiled and
conquered and and conquer others and it
just that's how
>> and a man will lose his hammer
>> largely diaspora no very specific this
is not mundane all right don't try to
get out of it by saying it's mundane.
Micah 5:7 and Hosea 3:4-5 are not
mundane. They predict that the total
destruction and diaspora of the Jewish
people. This is clear evidence. And if
you don't think that I
>> What do you mean destru total
destruction? Do Jews exist.
So it's not true.
>> I mean total destruction of the of the
land. It says that there won't be a
king.
>> Is there a hole there now where that
land used to be? The [\h__\h] are you
talking about, man?
>> There there are people that live there
now.
Why don't you look at it yourself?
>> Because you're the expert here, dude.
Tell us what it says.
>> If it didn't exist, we couldn't look at
it, could we?
>> I'll tell you what it says. So,
>> you're saying things that are both
mundane and not true at the same time.
So, what are you talking about?
>> And you're quoting a book that we've
already agreed it doesn't matter what it
says. It's only supposed to be taken
metaphorically. Here you are reading it
literally. You can't do that. It's only
metaphorical.
>> You know why this doesn't work? Because
first off, that's internal to my
position. And second, if you're exter,
you can't make an internal argument
right now because there's nothing.
>> I have very low tolerance for Pho
[\h__\h] Just talk like a person.
>> Be as external as possible.
>> Okay. So, you're being external. So,
yeah.
>> I want to check. Is there anybody still
waiting? Is there anybody on the phone
lines?
>> We're getting very close to the end of
this call. This is really really not uh
Yeah, there's not.
>> If there's anybody that's been waiting
on hold, I'm sure they would be awfully
frustrated at listening to this
conversation because this was some
[\h__\h]
>> Can Can we agree it predicts the
diaspora of the Jewish people?
>> No.
>> Because you keep quoting a book that was
only supposed to be read metaphorically,
so it doesn't matter what it says. So
why do you keeping it?
>> But you're not saying anything concrete.
You said the destruction of the people,
well, they weren't destroyed. The
destruction of the land, well, it
wasn't. It wasn't destroyed and you said
you had evidence and then admitted that
all you have are arguments. So you don't
have evidence.
>> Why did you waste our time?
>> Makes my claim more likely. And if it's
within an argument, it's obviously if
it's an inductive argument, obviously
that's evidence.
>> But you said not true things.
>> Yes.
>> Okay.
>> You said things that are not true.
>> The Bible makes that helps us verify
whether or not true.
>> We're done.
>> And you don't have them.
>> We are done now. And I I suggest you
think about
[laughter]
what you've done and said here and why
you believe what you do because it's not
good reasons.
Your argument was bad.
>> All of your arguments were bad and you
should feel bad.
[snorts]
>> Me because you're not intelligent.
>> Like, okay.
>> All right. Get this prick out. Free
Palestine.
[laughter]
You're not intelligent. You're just You
don't get it cuz you're dumb. I've said
not a single intelligent thing for how
long were we talking to that jerk?
[\h__\h] 45 minutes.
>> That was
>> But no, we're the dumb ones.
>> That was such a frustrating call.
[laughter]
Have you Have you noticed when you talk
to religious apologists or just any
defenders of the faith that logic just
doesn't seem to exist?
>> Not at all. And I mean, you can, this is
what's like, this is why these kind of
call-in shows are like both fun and
frustrating because it's frustrating
like slamming your head against a brick
wall for 40 minutes, but they're also
fun because you know for a fact that
absolutely nobody is going to be even
remotely challenging to talk to because
even you look at like William Lane Craig
or like like the like who they hold up
as the most intellectual unbeatable
version of the apologist and I listen to
those people and I'm like these people
are morons. um nothing they're saying is
can be substantiated at all. So you go
down a few wrongs on the ladder. It's
like I can like I don't even need to be
listening to this person.
Just ridiculous.