Saturday, March 20, 2021
Well, I had a very interesting conversation a few days ago. I've slowed down a bit on my Christian apologetics, but I still follow academic and biblical scholarship and the like, reading on historical-critical methods of interpreting the Bible, the cosmology of the ANE and all that. And I still watch debates on YouTube between Christians and atheists.
Back in March 2018, I took part in A Dialogue on Evolution (I should write about that some time), a discussion/debate that APOSL had with 2 creationists, Silas Low and Mark Tan. Kok Sen Wai and I "won" the discussion, with Samuel Nesan, a self-professed mid-earth creationist (young earth, but looks old), moderating. I had a nice conversation with Samuel during the dinner before the discussion, and I added him on Facebook, commenting occasionally. He's started a ministry called Explain Apologetics and takes part in debates and the like defending Christianity. Over the course of a few years, I've watched him debate with some prominent YouTube atheists, and the most recent one was him debating Matt Dillahunty about "Did Jesus Fulfill Prophecy". Honestly, that was one hell of a shit-show. Now, while as a Christian I do believe Jesus fulfilled the messianic prophecies, Matt Dillahunty made some very good critiques and points, while Samuel was on the (weaker) defensive. Purely from the debate? Matt won. But his attitude was atrocious. He was rude, and made broad assumptions about Samuel. He even muted himself to swear and yell at the camera. Damn. He was also focusing on the live chat and was upset about what they were saying, which is hilarious for a person who invites people to call and insult him on The Atheist Experience. Which all around is pretty sad, because I've watched him here and there since the early 2000s and I enjoyed his material. However over the years I think the pride has gotten to his head and he's been so sensitive and petty. He blocked Cosmic Skeptic on Twitter over a weak argument on veganism and humanism, and I've noticed he's been much more arrogant on his show the last few years.
Anyway, I commented on Samuel's post promoting the debate asking what he thought of it and he said he'd talk to me on Zoom. I thought why not. Been a while, might as well catch up. Had a good catch up on life, and his Master's at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary on Theology. We eventually got onto the topic of the debate and while he acknowledges he lost, he thought he didn't do a good job of presenting his case mostly due to time constraints and Dillahunty's outburst. He presented his case more fully to me and while I felt Dillahunty's points were still not completely answered, it was a much better case than he managed in the debate. We also talked a bit about the before and after, as well as his views on some people involved, although out of respect for discretion, considering he had a Zoom call with me than write his opinions online, I won't be sharing them.
We also spoke about our own views of Christianity, with me remarking that while I held to the typical orthodox views of Jesus, God and most common doctrines, I didn't hold the Bible to be inerrant nor infallible as there were clearly signs of errors in archeology, history and in-scripture references, even when read most charitably. He asked why and I gave a few examples, one of which was the indication of the divine council in the Septuagint version of Deuteronomy 32:8; the implication that Yahweh and El were separate beings. He wasn't familiar with that and said he'd check with his friend, Stephen Boyce, a New Testament scholar. Then a short while later he asked if it was okay for Stephen to join us and I said sure. First time in my life personally engaging with a New Testament scholar! Ha! 2012 me would've been crazy stoked! Not that I wasn't interested. But I'm more agnostic now than I was back then, when I was much more arrogantly certain about things. Either way, he examined the passage and believed the more (troublesome) passage in the LXX was probably more authentic, although he said the Old Testament wasn't his area of expertise. We discussed more about his thoughts on the divine council as well as how to interpret Satan. Samuel and Stephen both hold to a more theologically conservative Christianity while mine is somewhat more moderate, liberal in some areas, conservative in others. We had a very fruitful conversation about all these matters, and eventually the topic shifted back to my original comment that I didn't hold the Bible to be inerrant while they did, as defined by the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy. Stephen asked if it was a hill I was willing to die on and I said no, but considering what I've read on textual criticism, it was something I'd come to based on years of reading academic and scholarship material about the Bible and its development. Having a stronger view on the Bible is fine, but from what I'm aware of, it's not inerrant even if it holds more historical accuracy and truth than many liberal scholars would comfortably agree to.
Eventually after 3 hours we decided to call it a night, with them saying it'd be a great idea to revisit this topic some time again in the future, with me providing sources for my objections and they'd try their best to answer them. All in all, a great conversation! I do hope to continue the topic again in the future.
On a slightly related tangent, I reread the gospels recently, from Terry Eagleton's Jesus Christ: The Gospels, which refreshed what I remember from them, and there's a lot more nuance and difficulty than I remember when I last completely read them all. Also finished his book Reason, Faith, and Revolution: Reflections on the God Debate (both were borrowed from the library courtesy of the waifu), which argued for a more modern reading of God and Christianity while also chiding the shallowness of New Atheism. Several more opinions to take in. Like I mentioned, I'm more agnostic about certain things now, less certain as I know and read more. But I still do hold to a Mere Christianity view of Christianity.
Chronicled
11:10 PM