He is making these videos largely to opposite Young Earth Creationism, so in that way we are at odds. But he also makes arguments on some issues I feel very inclined to agree with.
Ben S I also have in mind in this post, he and IP have different views on the Nephilim but besides that they seem to be coming from the same place. I haven't dug into the details of Peter Hiett's interpretation of Genesis yet.
I don't want to go in-depth on everything, as much of it relates to things I've talked about before. I just have a few particular comments to me.
I believe he was correct to argue that Adam was forbidden to eat the fruit only until he was ready for it. But to me that should have gone hand in hand with arguing that the Tree of Life and Tree of Knowledge are actually the same tree. The entire basis for the "doctrine" that Pre-Fall Adam needed to eat from the Tree of Life to be important is a comment made at the end of Genesis 3 about Adam in his post-fall state.
On the creation of Eve, I also agree that "rib" should be translated "side" and that the picture here is of Adam being split in half. However he argues that this is merely a vision because God putting someone in a deep sleep always means that, and then cites Genesis 15 as if no one would disagree that God's covenant cutting ritual was a mere vision there. But I do disagree with that, I believe God walked in a figure eight at Shechem and that is why Mt Gerizim and Mt Ebal look the way they do. Genesis 1 and 5 tell us Adam was created Male and Female, what we call the creation of Woman was really Adam being literally split in two.
On the argument about what The Serpent is I mostly agree. But the one difference is no the Hebrew text of Genesis 3:1 and 14 does not justify saying the Serpent wasn't a "beast of the field" and a Behemah, it was. The thing is I believe all the beasts and fowls created in Genesis 2:18-19 are angelic beings who were sapient enough to be potential mates for Adam, and only Genesis 1 records the creation of normal animals.
IP's Nephilim argument is for the royal bloodlines view. I hold what is technically a from of the Sethite view, unfortunately IP talked about that view the least trying to write it off with two bad arguments based on a strawman understanding of it, the point is not about bloodlines but about Sons of God being Believers. My post on the subject is partly devoted to undoing that false understanding.
Now his argument overlaps with mine in some ways when it comes to arguing that the Sons of God can be Human beings. But I actually disagree with conceding Sons of God ever means Angels, especially not Psalm 82 which Jesus quotes as being about the Israelites.
He criticized the Hybrid view for being so dependent on later material, yet he too depends a lot on extra-Biblical material to support Sons of God meaning Kings. I show how my view fits the meta narrative of Genesis being about the escalation of violence.
His Meta Narrative for Genesis makes it so he thinks the main Sin in view here is Polygamy. I have utterly destroyed the notion that The Bible is anti Polygamy in any Testament.
And that's as far as he is at this point. I may do a follow up in response to future videos.
In his answering Bible Contradictions series, he on a number of occasions takes routes different then what I would and that's fine. The problem is when it comes to ones relating to the chronology of the Passion Week. He is acting as if the Crucifixion being Friday is the most undisputed detail of the Chronology, and those who think Jesus spent more time in the Grave then the traditional Passion week observance implies are moving the Resurrection to Monday or later, when I've never seen anyone argue that and I investigate these matters a lot, the day of Crucifixion is what's disputed, most commonly are arguments for Wednesday and Thursday. The only people are trying to move the Resurrection are those wanting to movie it up to the Sabbath who I have a few posts on my other blog.
As someone who has been for most of my online activity a Thursday Crucifixion proponent (but I have been open mindedly looking into other chronologies recently), I agree that the inclusive numbering is a valid interpretation which is part of why I have generally rejected the Wednesday model. But his desire to weasel out of three days and three nights is simply nonsense.
The Resurrection is placed on the "third day" many times, but the Crucifixion is never called the "first day". I believe the Resurrection was on the Third Day of Unleavened Bread, the 17th of Aviv.
The Crucifixion is seemingly described as the day before (or preparation day of) the Sabbath a few times. However the Sabbath in question is the 15th of Aviv not the weekly Sabbath. Leviticus 23 describes the 15th as a day that is like the Sabbath in that doing labor was forbidden. Leviticus 23 doesn't use the word Sabbath for that day, but when talking about the seventh month it does do so for it's non weekly days you can't work. When discussing the first month it avoids that only so there is no confusion that the weekly Sabbath is the one relevant for determining Fristfurits and Pentecost. We know the Sabbath approaching when Jesus died was a Holy Day not a regular weekly Sabbath because John 19:31 explicitly calls it a High Day.
And not even every Gospel explicitly calls the day after the Crucifixion a Sabbath, Matthew never does, Matthew only calls the night before the Resurrection the Sabbath in 28:1, and calls the day of the Crucifixion the Preparation in 27:62 but never uses the word Sabbath in chapters 26 or 27. Matthew is the most Jewish Gospel, the one some sources say was originally written in Hebrew. So it makes sense he would use these terms more strictly and correctly to Torah terminology then other writers. I believe in all four Gospels Preparation day means the 14th of Nisan not Friday.
Mark 16:1 is misused by Wednesday proponents to say the Women purchased the spices after the Sabbath creating apparent conflict with Luke 23:56. But this is false, Mark 16 is only referring to them having brought these spices previously. Luke 23 is clearly making it still the same day they Buried Jesus that they prepared the Spices.
IP's second video on Passion Week chronology is about if the Last Supper was the Passover Seder. The Last Supper being the Seder is the casual popular misconception, but every scholar who actually cares about how Jesus fulfills the meaning of Passover knows the answer to this alleged contraction needs to be that Jesus is the Lamb and so is killed when the Lamb is killed.
The idea that the Synoptics make the Last Super the Passover Seder is based one statements recorded in Matthew 26:17, Mark 14:12 and Luke 22:7, and then another Quote that's only in Luke I'll get to later.
And the first day of unleavened bread, when they killed the passover, his disciples said unto him, Where wilt thou that we go and prepare that thou mayest eat the passover?If these verses are translated correctly then they are a problem no matter what chronology you support because they make it sound like the Passover is killed during the days of Unleavened Bread. The Passover is killed during the daylight hours (Between the evenings in the YLT) of the 14th. Fact is there is no coherent chronology where eating the Seder is yet future but it's already during Unleavened Bread.
In at least Matthew the word Day isn't used in the Greek, and the word translated "first" can also mean "before". I don't know exactly how to translate these verses, but I think they are saying that Unleavened Bread is approaching since everyone knows they come after the Passover is killed. And the beginnings of both Matthew 26 and Mart 14 place these events 2 days Passover and Unleavened Bread.
The Disciples make these arrangements two days before, but then Matthew 26:20 and Mark 14:17 make the Last Supper that very next evening.
The only verse that even comes close to directly describing the Last Supper as Passover is Luke 22:15-16. And we have another translation issue, because some add the word "again" to verse 16 when that's not in the Greek, or the KJV or the YLT. In this quote Jesus says he desired to eat the Passover with His Disciples before He suffered, but he's saying that to lament the fact that He won't.
John 18:28 is using the word Passover not of a holiday but of the Lamb itself to be eaten. Even in the looser terminology they might have been using in the first century AD that was still only ever done in reference to the Lamb killed during the daylight hours of the 14th. And I believe 19:14 is doing the same, this is happening as they are preparing the Passover Lambs for slaughter just as Jesus is being prepared for slaughter. John called Jesus the Lamb of God all the way back in the first chapter. This is also why it's stressed that none of the bones were broken.
1 Corinthians 5:7 says Jesus is our Passover Sacrificed for us.
What was the Last Supper if it wasn't The Seder?
Well I feel the main Hebrew Bible precedent for it is Genesis 14 not Exodus 12, with Jesus as Melchizedek and the Disciples(us) as Abraham.
Extra Biblical ideas suggested include it being a Seudat Mitzvah of some kind likely a Seudat Siyum Masechet, or a "Teaching Seder".
The "Teaching Seder" I have had trouble finding verification is a thing independent of Christians talking about this issue. But the concept is basically like doing a rehearsal dinner for a wedding the night before the actual dinner. And frankly that actually fits best with what actually happens at the Last Supper. When Jesus says "do this in remembrance of me" in Luke 22:19 and 1 Corinthians 11:24-25, He's giving them instructions for the Seder they will have the following night when He's gone. Which is why it's still valid for Christians to read the Last Supper account when we have a Christian Passover Sedar.
So I think the earliest Christians were doing the Eucharist on Thursday night proceeding Resurrection Sunday for that reason, and in time the tradition simply got confused.