35:43 Only Jimmy Akin would so casually allude to Star Gate without even clarifying. I love it.

Got more out of this video than the first one with Bertuzzi. Probably because a more concentrated dose of Jimmy 😊 Lot more historical context here, like in Trent Horn's book _Hard Sayings_ , which again surprised still didn't get mentioned

Origen whose interpretation Jimmy motioned in the spiritualized interpretation may have literalized the passage he quoted. "And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and cast it from you. It is better for you to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes, to be cast into hell fire." - Matthew 18:9 Ironically, He cut off his own genitals. This is according to Eusebius an admirer of his who lived a few decades after Origen.

Really appreciate you asking and clarifying things with Jimmy. You did a very good job Suan!

Excellent work Suan

greatly informative! Thank you both very much for this talk!

One thing we should keep in mind if defending the literal view, is not just philosophical considerations about things like Divine Command Theory, but also our doctrine of sin. Sin, from a biblical view, is not merely the transgressing of an abstract moral law. Sin almost has a physical component to it, it pollutes the very land upon which sins are committed. Moreover, there is a corporate nature to sin that is often presented to us in the OT, especially vis-a-vis sins that are against God directly (like false worship) and not only against society (like unjust economical activity). Further, the sins of the Canaanites are explicitly linked to a demon god, so the Canaanites themselves had yoked themselves to a demonic spirit, whose intent is purely evil. Finally, if we look directly at the kinds of sins the Canaanites were committing, and take into account the reality of that, then we may be more inclined to think the killing, or at least the command to kill, was indeed more justified than our initial sensibilities would suggest. I mean we are talking, in some instances at least, about the burning of children alive while men and women danced and sang around the burning infant in ecstatic worship of their god. Imagine actually seeing that play out, how would you feel?

Thank you for this. God bless brothers

I'm sure there is a huge crossover/overlap between yalls channels. I certainly represent one. ❤

You know Jimmy is an OG if he gets to call William Lane Craig "Bill." 😆😆😝

Thank you.

For a second i read the video thumbnail as THE CONQUEST OF CANADA😂. and i clicked because Trudy sucks

I have been thinking about this issue quite a lot. I hope this post will add and not detract. This issue draws out the complexities of basing a Christian faith almost entirely on the bible. As most people, who have had an encounter with Christ, would tell you: John 1:14 ” And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth; we have beheld his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father.”

Great video 👍🙏✝️🇻🇦

There is another possibility that I rarely see "scholars" address in this question. I suspect that is because the option is too wild for most of them, Jimmy Akin, on the other hand I would kind of expect to talk about it, so I'm surprised he didn't. There is an idea present in the OT originating in Genesis 6 and continuing on into the rest of the Pentateuch, that fallen angels some how produced hybrid offspring with human beings and that their offspring were giants (the nephilim) and were essentially not fully human. The belief that this happened was widespread in Judaism and Christianity up until about the 4th century AD. It only began to fall out of favor with St. Augustine who rejected it in favor of the "sethite" interpretation of Genesis 6. However, even if you don't accept the angelic interpretation of Genesis 6, it is virtually undeniable that the Israelites DID accept that interpretation. Jimmy Akin makes the very valid point that we ought to be trying to understand what the historic human author was trying to say. It is at least very likely, if not virtually certain that the author would have accepted that interpretation and there is evidence in the conquest narrative that supports this. For example, the word nephilim is used to describe some of the inhabitants of Canaan. Likewise they are described as giants. Perhaps most interestingly, almost all, if not all, of the places where God told Israel to put the Canaanites under "the Ban" are places with names or tribal names that correspond to the nephilim and/or giants. Also, I don't think Jimmy falls into this trap, but most of the people who have a problem with the Conquest of Canaan do. The trap of which I speak is the use of modern subjective morality to judge divine revelation. Richard Weaver, in his book Ideas Have Consequences (1948 I think) said that modern man was a "moral idiot". Meaning not an idiot who is moral, but someone who has an idiotic understanding of morality. I think Mr. Weaver was right. Modern man hasn't got a moral leg to stand on. Consider that many of the same people who object to the "genocide" of the Conquest of Canaan, support the legal killing of the unborn. They literally support the legalized killing of over a hundred million babies, but object to the killing of what, at the very least, were a deeply evil and violent people. Consider that modern America has more innocent blood on it's hands than Hitler or Stalin, and yet we consider ourselves to be "good people". We are a deeply deeply morally confused people, to be as generous as possible. The idea of our passing judgement on something in the past that doesn't live up to our moral standards, or even merely our legal definitions (as in Genocide) is bordering on absurd. Regarding the Euthyphro dilemma and the Christian view. This can be construed as a dilemma between Voluntarism (the will is primary) and Intellectualism (the Intellect is primary). In Voluntarism whatever God wills is good. In intellectualism, God knows the good and wills it because he is good. The Christian answer to this is unique in that it says both and neither, in a sense. In the Christian view, God's will and his intellect are one and the same thing. There is no separation between them and as such one cannot be primary over the other. As such a Christian can say, God IS the Good, which means that he both knows the good, because he knows himself, and what he wills is good, because he wills only according to his nature. This view denies the arbitrary nature of Voluntarism, because God cannot simply will anything. He cannot will to sin, to lie, to do evil, etc. He cannot will against the good of one of his creatures because that would be to will contrary to love. He cannot will to cease to be God, and so on. Thus it is impossible for God to will murder to be good, or to will for us to hate him (both of which William of Ockham argued in favor of as a Voluntarist). However, the reality is that we also only know of the divine nature what God has revealed to us, and even that can only be understood in terms of concession to our finite capacity for understanding. Thus, we must develop our understanding of goodness or "the Good" based on divine self-revelation which, of course, includes scripture but is perfected particularly in the person of Jesus Christ. It is, however, exceptionally dangerous and we must be exceptionally careful when we being to try to reinterpret divine self-revelation in order to fit it better with our specifically modern understanding of morality. This is not to say that we can't question and debate it, but we do need to be careful about what we allow. I think Jimmy is correct that what we ought to do is try to understand what the historic author was really trying to say, that's entirely valid. But, we do need to be aware of the dishonesty that can easily seep in of saying "I'm just trying to understand the authors intent" when in reality we are trying to shoe horn a modernistic morality into an ancient writers mouth.

Thanks for this. You guys are awesome. I was hoping you were going to start with a prayer though 🙏🏼.

I can understand the view Jimmy is defending, that the text was written in or around the time of the monarchy and is warning the current Israelites of that time period about spiritual corruption. However, the way the text reads, one would not be wrong to think that even a later author is still writing to his audience in such a way as to compel his 1000's-900 BC era audience to commit violence against the Canaanites still in the land. So I don't know that it mitigates the command to kill all that much.

This video was not what I thought it was gonna be based on the title. I thought it was going to be about the historicity of the conquest of Canaan (sort of like an extension of "did the Exodus happen?"), asking whether the Hebrews really conquered Canaan by force, or were they really just a native ethnic group in the region, was Jericho really inhabited at the time, etc.

25:35 Dr. WLC almost sounded as though he was endorsing voluntarism. I've listened to his Defenders series twice through and many dozens of his regular show and articles, in light of what I know of him from that, I don't think he is a voluntarist, but he certainly sounded like one.

The whole topic of what God said the Israelites did in the OT being tied to Jesus and who two primary commandments should then bring the NT into the discussion. There are passages likely based on the first commandment and mankind's failures there similar and even more severe than those in the OT because they are of eternal no temporal significance. This ties into my other post that the real discussion here is about God's eternal judgement not some temporal discussion about the distant past but really about the future one.

Great conversation! I wonder if Jimmy thinks that God could command the killing of the innocents, such as in the original literal interpretation, or if he thinks it’s against God’s nature.

I think God could command anything and it would be good, I think God would not command certain things

The real meat of this discussion is not what happened that God ordered at some point in the past. Did God really say? BUT will God really judge mankind with some going to heaven and others hell. This appears to be the heart of this discussion.

The ”balein"

I think the Church Fathers had it right. Obsession on the literal sense is foolish and meaningless

Well if God’s wrath does not exist, then Jerusalem is probably not destroyed in utter violence like never was seen before and we can also delete the Book of Revelation 🤔

The conquest of Canaan (Scorpio) is nothing more than the setting of Scorpio denoting the end of winter. See five signs in Rev. 9.5. As Taurus rises, Scorpio sets (ends winter). With the rising of Scorpio and setting of Taurus we are back to winter. See Mithras slaying the bull (Taurus).

Why don't Christians just say it's a story, seeing as the conquest of Caanan didn't happen, as Israelites were caananites to begin with? (Mark S Smith et Al)

Jimmy Akin is a clown

Does the Bible condone genocide slavery, & misogyny? Probably not 🤷‍♀️ Don't believe the sinners God Did NOT approve of *genocide ( Deut 20:16-18,) God did NOT approve of*human sacrifice JEPHTHAH’S DAUGHTER (Judges 11:30-39,) God did NOT approve of*sxual assault (Numbers 31: 18), God did NOT approve of *SlaVerY (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB) (Leviticus 25:44-46 @catholicconvert2119