Hey Dr. Falk! I was wondering if you could finally respond to Atheologica’s video, “Putting Falk in His Place on the Resurrection of Osiris” (it’s been over a year now)?

@FollowersofTheShepherd

17 күн бұрын

I hope he does, that would be super interesting 🍿

I really pray that your book about the Plagues of Egypt will be accepted by the publisher! Cannot wait to read it! Could you recommend some books except of Kennet Kitchen on Old Testament Archeology?

I've thought of the "love your enemy " means when they're at your mercy.

@ancientegyptandthebible

18 күн бұрын

It can apply to that situation, but it is not specifically that.

Time Stamps For My Questions: 3:03:20 3:12:40 3:23:40 3:27:05 3:37:55 3:43:50 3:44:30 3:44:40 3:47:40 3:48:10 4:22:15 4:25:10

Pretty sure it was Elisha.

1:16:50 I found that text under Instructions of Shuruppag, some sources say Shuruppak.

Q: In overtime you mentioned the universal application of not returning fugitive slaves, so how kosher was Paul's treatment of Onesimus by returning him to Philemon?

@zach2382

22 күн бұрын

Paul wasn’t returning him as a slave, but as an equal

@RichLuciano1

22 күн бұрын

@@zach2382 So?

@zach2382

21 күн бұрын

@@RichLuciano1it was a completely different thing

@RichLuciano1

21 күн бұрын

@@zach2382 it seems like you have not considered it.

@zach2382

21 күн бұрын

@@RichLuciano1 well there’s also the new covenant

Question: Does Ancient Egypt and the Bible have a Facebook page? I wasn't able to find it. Thanks!

@ancientegyptandthebible

21 күн бұрын

We don't have a AEatB Facebook page at the moment. Do we need one?

@FollowersofTheShepherd

17 күн бұрын

​@@ancientegyptandthebibleWouldn't hurt🤷‍♂️

I have a feeling the Genesis one he skipped was mine, I asked about sources regarding whether Sodom and Gomorrah was north or south of the dead sea

@zach2382

21 күн бұрын

I believe he already answered that in a previous live stream

That clan thing entirely changes the way that part of Genesis is meant to be understood. If there's a generation between Abraham and Isaac, does the miraculous nature of the birth of Isaac refer to Isaac's father? Does it refer to Isaac, but there's a son of Isaac who ended up being Jacob and Esau's father?

@zach2382

21 күн бұрын

Most likely that would refer to the Isaac

Just like if aliens created us, who created them etc.

Immaculate conception suffers from infinite regression.

Regarding immaculate conception, I think you got it a little confused. From what I understand, had Adam and Eve had children in the garden of Eden, prior to their sin, those children would have been immaculately conceived. So immaculate conception does not require parthenogenesis. It requires that all members of Mary's genealogy conceived their children prior to sinning. Since we know that Eve was not in a sinless state when she gave birth to Kain, Abel and Seth, the doctrine of immaculate conception requires that Seth be not part of Mary's genealogy. Jesus, Mary and all their ancestors would have to have been either the descendants of other humans (not Adam and Eve) or they would have to have been descendants of children born to Adam and Eve in Eden of which there is no mention anywhere. Either way, all of these humans had to have never intermarried with Adam and Eve's descentants and never sinned prior to giving birth to their children. They would have to have lived for thousands years in a completely isolated community of sinless people. This is simply false. Such a view denies Jesus being "the son of David, the son of Abraham" (Matthew 1:1), who were both sinners when they had their children, it denies almost all of Jesus' and Mary's genealogy (Luke 3). It denies Galatians 3:16 about promises given to Abraham: "Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, “And to offsprings,” referring to many, but referring to one, “And to your offspring,” who is Christ.". Finally, I have no idea how Jesus is supposed to be called "the last Adam" (1 Corinthians 15), if he doesn't represent Adam's sinful race. You also said that the doctrine of immaculate conception relied on a medieval myth. Don't forget that this wasn't quite enough. Roman-Catholic church accepted it as dogma only after the supposed appearances of Mary in France in 1830 and onwards

@ancientegyptandthebible

20 күн бұрын

Not really. According to the RCC, carnal knowledge (even carnal knowledge within marriage) IS sin. So for Mary to have have been conceived without sin, parthenogenesis had to take place. And for her mother to be without sin, the same would have had to occur. Dogma has consequences.

@tymmiara5967

20 күн бұрын

@@ancientegyptandthebible I will need to ask for a source because I've never heard any roman catholic state that every case of carnal knowledge is sinful, and I grew up in Poland, surrounded by roman catholics, and had about a whole year of lessons at school surrounding the subject of family planning. As far as I can read in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, (part two, section two, chapter three, article seven) point V is titled "V. The Goods and Requirements of Conjugal Love". Conjugal love is called good and it involves (but is not limited to) union of one flesh (point 1643) and marriage is instituted for procreation (1652). I know this doesn't mean that the sinfulness of carnal knowledge is not mentioned elsewhere, but I can't find any resource that would point to such doctrine