The Origin of Everything | The Weird Bible Podcast: Episode 3

39:18 "Water, fire, air and earth. Fucking magnets, how do they work?"

Also, specially looking at Wendigoon, siting Tolkien is perfectly legitimate! Tolkien was a world class scholar and an absolute genius. His works are full of philosophical, religious, and theological depths. There are plenty of religious and philosophical heavy weights who site Tolkien and are inspired by his works.

Hey LoreLodge/Wendigoon, if Wendigoon recorded his face camera himself while in the discord call, you guys could match the video to the audio feed of this stream vod and not have a spooky scary laggy (and visually compressy) Wendigoony

7:20 THANK YOU I THOUGHT I WAS GOING CRAZY "In the beginning there was nothing, then God made the heavens and the earth." I swear that is how it was taught to me as a Catholic. I don't know why but it has always been that way. First there was nothing, THEN came the something.

Man I love this series, you guys boil down the bible in such relatable ways and without fear of cracking the occasional joke, it is so refreshing as well as interesting to watch. You guys have brought me closer to God in such an amazing way and I know I'm a bit late to this episode but I appreciate these sort of objective views on the Bible because it only serves to solidify my own beliefs through logic and understanding which a church could not have done. I love the work you guys have done and wish to see you succeed with every step, God bless.

Pastor Allen Nolan in Oklahoma frames it like this: there are two sets of rules for life in the Bible. Some applied to the people of their time, some apply across all time. The "don't eat pork" rule applied to the time period in which the rule was administered.

Just found your podcast on The Lore Lodge channel a few days ago and promptly binged the entire catalog. Got to the end and experienced the usual post-binge crash and wanted more. Then I remembered you mentioning creating the podcasts own channel so I've started back over! Love the podcast and especially the more casual and intimate dive into The Word. I'm a somewhat newer believer and this kind of connection and study is somewhat lacking in my walk so this is very much enjoyable and refreshing! May not agree on every single interpretation but am learning and growing day by day and enjoy the different perspectives. Thank you for the entertainment and encouragement! Keep up the good work and I'll be praying for you both and your continued success in sharing The Word!

Regarding the lower case "h" and uppercase "H" in heavens in Genesis chapter 1. In verse 1:1 it is ha-shamayim "the heaven(s)" in this case it is common noun, just identifying the thing... like if we were to say "the tree". In vese 1:8 it is just shamayim without the "ha" (definite article). Also, importantly, in this verse God is specifically naming the thing. So in English it is here translated as "Heaven", a proper noun (because it is a name). The main difference is that verse 1 is just referring to the thing, while verse 8 is giving the proper name of the thing. In Hebrew, the only difference between the two is the use of the definite article in verse 1 and not in verse 2. In English we capitalize verse 8, because it is a proper noun. Regarding what used to be known as "canopy theory" the idea that the waters above the firmament were a bubble or canopy of water around the earth. Other than the scientific problems for this, the biggest problem is that if you pay attention to the details of Genesis, it clearly states that the stars are in the firmament that is between the waters above and the waters below. This would mean that the water's above, in our modern scientific understanding would have to have been outside the universe, or on the very edge of the universe, since the stars are contained within. The idea that there was a bunch of water specifically around the planet earth, does not fit the text of Genesis. For that matter, the idea that it didn't rain before the flood, is also not stated by the Bible. The verse in question is at the beginning of chapter 2, and it actually says that it had not rained before man was created. Here is the verse... When no bush of the field was yet in the land and no small plant of the field had yet sprung up—for the LORD God had not caused it to rain on the land, and there was no man to work the ground, and a mist was going up from the land and was watering the whole face of the ground— then the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature. This is at the beginning of chapter 2, and some people see in this a contradiction about the timing of the creation of plants and such from chapter 1. However, this is not actually talking about the creation of plants, but rather it is referring to the beginning of cultivation in relation to the creation of man. It is not saying that no plants existed. It is rather saying that cultivation had not yet begun because man was not created. This is also the context of when it says that God had not caused it to rain yet. This does not mean that it NEVER rained after this until the flood came. It means that God did not cause rain before the creation of man, because the text is drawing a specific link between man and cultivation. There was no need for rain because there were no crops yet. Personally I don't think the debate between literal 6 day creation and a non-literal reading is important at all. In fact, I think most of the time it is nothing but a huge distraction that keeps people from looking at what the text of Genesis is really about and is really trying to tell us. In my opinion, there are two really important things when it comes to understanding the creation story in Genesis, first is to understand it in the context of the creation myths of the surrounding cultures. Remember that the Israelites were surrounded by and often inundated with the pagan culture of their neighbors. The creation story is essentially God telling his version of the story to the Israelites, in contrast with all the other versions they heard from their neighbors. Second is that the creation story has numerous parallels to the establishment of the covenant and the tabernacle/temple in Exodus and the rest of the Pentateuch. The creation story in Genesis needs to be understood in the context of the story of Israel in the Old Testament, it is all part of one story and it is internally consistent and it is internally self-referential. For example, much of the imagery that is told to us about the Garden of Eden in Genesis related directly to the descriptions of the Tabernacle in Exodus. In other words, Genesis is essentially telling us that the Garden of Eden was the first temple. It was the place that God built, for man to come into the divine presence and to commune with God. It also shows us Adam as the first priest. There is a lot more to it, but this is the kind of stuff that I think the majority of people miss, because they are too obsessed with trying to force or defend a literal / modernist-scientific reading

Sorry this is so much later after this was posted but when you were discussing where Eden might have been located it reminded me of something i heard about in my Biology 2 class. So apparently we have evidence that all flowering plants came from a single island/piece of land that eventually disappeared into the sea or something to that effect and even my porfessor hinted that it might be the garden of Eden! Of course we dont know where it is now but i just think that its kinda cool

25:00 That is really interesting. I'm from Poland, a very Catholic country (at least so it calls itself) and was raised heavily Catholic. And in my experience of Catholicism, original sin most definitely is taught to be a an evil deed Adam and Eve performed, but you should be ashamed of and feel personally guilty about. While not word-for-word "you're evil from birth" it's definitely like "it's an evil thing you're guilty of just because you were born". I've heard this both in Church and in religion classes at school. Maybe youth group is different, maybe as you get older the aspect of being blamed for something you never did is not as heavily focused on, but definitely since I was 5 I kept hearing everyone is born with a sin they didn't commit but are guilty of. EDIT: By 31:00 I think I get what you're saying. I think there's an important distinction between being "inherently evil" and "born evil". Because as presented at least to me and those around me by Catholicism, that's the whole point of the christening sacrament. You are born in sin, already tainted without ever doing anything wrong. Just because you are born, you automatically inherit sin. The sacrament of christening is supposed to wash this sin from you, so that you have any hope to go into Heaven. Mind you, it is the 21st century and so people are beginning to see that it's simply unfair and any God that would condemn any child who died before being christened is not worth believing in. That leads to people either leaving the faith altogether or ignoring that part, however it is still taught at Chruch and at school as the way things work. Again I don't know if that's what the guy on TikTok was arguing for, but the "you're born with evil in you" notion definitely is propagated in Catholicism, at least as far as I experienced it.

In regards to the relationship of light to time, it reminds me of the concept of slower aging by astronauts when they're away fro Earth and they come back and their cells are less aged than the amount of time that's passed since their departure. I think they did a study on some male astronauts who were twins, very interesting.

You guys should bring this back

I’d love to hear a podcast on that private conversation about darkness allowing humanity to escape or get out of time. 👀

Aidan's step-dad paying twenty dollars for proof about new Moloch/Baal evidence really had some hardcore "but Bohemian Grove!" energy behind it

I need you guys to deep dive into Sheol and Purgatory. Very confused in my walk of faith about those two places/words and their true meaning in its true context.

Thank you for these videos.

The description of hell you guys gave is the exact conversation i had with my dad. He explained that hell is the absence of God - at the time i just couldn't put together the concepts of sinful nature being inherently human and the removal of said nature is heaven and hell being the removal of god being humans in their base nature.

Hey guys I love this podcast please keep making it so i can sleep to it and hsve you both haunt my dreams

Funny enough, "big bang" as a name started as a mocking name for the theory given by the scientific community to the supposedly Creationist/Apologist theory that they were ridiculing as a religious explanation rather than a factually supported one. Which the person who coined it said wasn't his intent, while he was heavily criticizing it and arguing for a steady state model.

1:26:29 Fire is a source of light! I think you can easily put both in the same category of greek elements, and being types of energy it fits with the scientific view of religion you were discussing (which I share btw).