Response to "The Top 10 Reasons the Bible is Repulsive"

 

Several years ago, I was shown a video from YouTube making the argument that the Bible is an awful book.  At the time, I watched the video and put down my response.  Below is what I wrote back then, largely unaltered.

I thought I'd take some time to respond to the YouTube video entitled The Top 10 Reasons the Bible is Repulsive.

I will say in advance that I don't know how long this response will be, but I will endeavor to be thorough in how I respond.  I will also say that I anticipate that I will be referencing Dr. Paul Copan's book Is God a Moral Monster? in the course of my response.  If anyone cares to know the truth about these issues, Dr. Copan's book is an excellent place to start.

Here we go...

INTRODUCTION (00:47)

//If 99% of Americans believe in the 10 Commandments, how can the Bible be repulsive?  It's because they've never actually read the Bible//

Immediately, the author of this video has begun to have a problem.  He makes an assertion that the only reason that anyone could believe in the 10 Commandments is that they've never read the Bible.  But isn't it also possible that Christians HAVE read the Bible and don't see any of the problems that the video's author claims are there?

In other words, isn't it possible that what the author will be claiming is not the only way to interpret things?  In fact, as we'll see, his interpretation seems to be deliberately misrepresenting things in order to try and indict those who hold to the Judaeo-Christian worldview.  He is, in essence, building a straw man argument, which is a logically fallacious way of reasoning.

For those of you interested in a definition of a straw man, here is a quick definition (from here: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html#strawman):

"The straw man fallacy is when you misrepresent someone else's position so that it can be attacked more easily, knock down that misrepresented position, then conclude that the original position has been demolished. It's a fallacy because it fails to deal with the actual arguments that have been made."

Now let's look at the specific points to see how they hold up...

POINT 1 (1:41)

·       What should we do with everyone who breaks the fourth commandment?

The author of this video reads the fourth commandment and then lists companies that keep their doors open on Sunday.  This is particularly interesting since the Sabbath was on Saturday and not Sunday.  So immediately his objection demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of what the Sabbath even is!

Further, the OT Laws were given for a specific purpose to a specific people at a specific time.  The Israelite nation had entered into what was, in effect, a marriage covenant with God.  God was building a nation of God-fearing people from which Jesus would be born to redeem all mankind.  In order to bring this about, God provided laws that were specific to the Jewish nation.  When Christ came, he fulfilled the OT laws.  Thus mankind is no longer under those laws.  Their purpose has been served and their time is past.

As far as the morality of the death penalty for anyone violating the Sabbath during that time period, it's important to remember that a Sabbath-breaker in the Israelite culture would have been someone who voluntarily committed to living under God's covenant.  So any act of work on the Sabbath was essentially an act of direct rebellion against God.  God, who was taking steps to create a pure nation from which Jesus could be born, was taking steps to preserve the covenant relationship that the Israelites had freely established with him.

So what do we see?  We see that the video:

Misunderstands the concept of the "Sabbath"

Misunderstands the purpose of the Mosaic Law

Misunderstands the scope of the Mosaic Law

Misunderstands the timeline of the Mosaic Law

Misunderstands the limitations of the Mosaic Law

As far as fulfillment of the Mosaic Law, the NT talks repeatedly about how Jesus has put away the old law.  Here are a couple of places that talk about it:

Hebrews 7 - Jesus has established a better covenant than the Mosaic Law:

18 The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless 19 (for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God.

20 And it was not without an oath! Others became priests without any oath, 21 but he became a priest with an oath when God said to him:

“The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind: ‘You are a priest forever.’”

22 Because of this oath, Jesus has become the guarantor of a better covenant.

Romans 8 - Christ has set us free from the Mosaic Law (the law of sin and death):

 1 Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, 2 because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit who gives life has set you free from the law of sin and death.

Point 2(2:11)

·       The Bible demands the death penalty for tens of millions of Americans

Here is a perfect example of the fallacy known as the appeal to fear.  The speaker is attempting to turn the audience against the Bible by using deception/propaganda to prejudice the listener.  Given that this is demonstrably false (as already shown in Point 1 above), the only purpose for this is to deceive.  Whether the deception is deliberate or not, I won’t judge.  However, if it’s simply a lack of education, then one wonders why the speaker wouldn’t take 10 seconds to look into the matter before making such an inflammatory statement.