I saw a “paradox” that if god was all loving why did he make the Bible so confusing if this was the best he could do them doesn’t this show he isn’t omnipotent. The video below also contains multiple confusing arguements and paradoxes If someone could take the time to explain and refute them that would be greatly appreciated! https://youtu.be/7urcE4IwMf0
It is true that sometimes we found ourselves having a hard time understanding the Bible. We make an objection that there are a lot of contradictions and misunderstandings. I want to share with you a little slice of my response here.
1.) When the Bible is confusing, it is at the same time challenging us to dive deeper. When there is something we don’t understand in the Scripture, it is at the same time inviting us to study more.
Abdu Murray often reminds us that there is a huge difference between a “skeptic” and a “cynic.”
Skeptic is someone who doubts and when given an enough evidence, he believes it to be reasonable.
Cynic is someone who doubts, but even when he is given an enough evidence, he chooses not to believe.
I once heard Ravi Zacharias says, “It is not the insuffiency of evidence. It is the supression of it.” Therefore, in our part as seeker for truth, when the Bible seems confusing, let us dive deeper to know the answer. Not to leave and let our questions unanswered.
2.) On other hand, if God was not omnipotent, why is the Bible was preserved in the first place? If God truly does not intervene in humanity, why is it we have access to His word? Finally, if God is omnipotent enough, would He not reveal to us and empower us to understand His word?
These are the questions to ponder about. We often define God’s omnipotence in our finite understanding. C.S. Lewis points out, “God’s omnipotence means He can do not that which intrisically impossible, but that which is intrinsically possible.”
I hope these help!
Thank you for reading.
It’s possible this young man (in your video link) was suspended by a string of mental-doctrinal-interpretations and assumptions for his entire upbringing. Perhaps as he matured and grew he got “heavy”. The string broke. And he fell; and… became an atheist youtuber. (That’s my guess anyways)
Before I answer the question you asked I would point out that this young youtuber, being suspended and supported by the strings of Christianity, with no true root of his own didn’t have the ground to actually find what he was seeking because it’s not Christianity that makes a person whole. It’s Christ. I would point out that the young atheist believed he was a Christian. But I would contend that he had no depth of earth (Mat 13:5)
I think we need philosophy and doctrine and logic and knowledge and words like the body needs its divinely-ingenious network of veins and vessels and organs and such. I would point out that the ingenious network of these things is as much needed as the organs themselves. But in and of themselves they cannot constitute or sustain life: Logical explanations that overlook the actual layers of complexity in a thing can only look smart for a short while…
As I see it: life is multidimensional because of all that it entails and all that it means . And God makes no apologies for it being that way. As a father He has his ways and means to impart, and gifts that minister to these complexities.
One such gift is relationships with whom we may share and listen and hear and be understood by those whom we interact and serve and benefit from. But the deeper the relationship is, the more complex and valuable and meaningful it is.
moreover, It shouldn’t surprise us that the gift of God’s written word is as multidimensional as relationships. And to those who handle it properly, who grow roots to love it: our relationship to God’s word is a personal relationship in and of itself. It’s every bit as simple and complex and profound as a deep relationship with another person: If you oversimplify it or under-simplify it it’s a recipe for confusion.
As far as articulating answers to each of the objections on the fast-talking 20 minute video you gave, It would probably take somebody about 5 or 6 well written pages to counter this young atheists arguments. If you want to pursue each of his arguments I would offer the suggestion that your response to his initial objection (that the universe is billions of years old) might be one of total non-resistance because his statement doesn’t necessarily contradict the bible narrative of a literal 6 day creation: The bible begins with the words:
“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.” (Genesis 1:1-2)
I would point out that the time period before Genesis 1:1 (the time period prior to the beginning of mankind’s earth) still existed prior to the 6 days. The spirit of God came over and hovered upon something with “waters” right?.. (It clearly wasn’t “nothing”). Also, the phrase in Genesis 1:16 “He made the stars also” Does not mean that He made them on the 4th day. The phrase begins with a colon and in context it seems to be an add-on that speaks to the correlative universe around the sun and moon which the verse is referencing. In the same way that the "formless- and-void-earth existed prior to the 6 days of creation where God came to it and moved upon the face of the waters, it is reasonable to identify that there actually was a pre-existent water-filled-“Earth” (of some sort) and universe (filled with stars and other stuff) prior to the beginning of the 6 days. Therefore for this young atheist to file a complaint against the bible narrative regarding the earth and the universe being billions of years old doesn’t disprove anything about a literal 6 day creation.
I would leave you with the following challenge and encouragement moving forward: The young atheist in your video link is a fast talker and a good communicator. And I wish I could put together such a fine youtube video such as his. But if you take the time to slow down what he’s actually saying and actually think about it in your own mind and do your own study and breakdown of it at your own pace, it’s possible you would enjoy the ability to refute what he’s saying quite easily.