Smooth AD Has a Question For Thinking Biblically

Hey there, this is Smooth AD Robles here and it's been quite some time since I've seen you.

You look great, everybody. Thank you so much for watching. Let me just say it, you guys look beautiful out there, baby.

Alright, well, today I wanted to do a quick video in response to a, well, a gentleman here who goes by the name on YouTube of Thinking Biblically because he thinks very biblically.

Anyway, his name is Steven Anderson. Not that Steven Anderson. Nope, nope, not that one. This is a different Steven Anderson.

But he's done quite a few videos about old AD Robles here and I think this is his fourth one and I just,

I heard something very interesting in it. And what I wanted to do is maybe have a nice even exchange here because you had a few questions for me in this video.

I'm not going to answer all of them. I think what we should do maybe is a one -to -one exchange. I'll answer one of your questions and then maybe you can answer one of mine because I found something very interesting in this video that I wanted a little clarity on.

But before we get into that, let me just give you a few points of order here. Number one, I want to show you some

YouTube etiquette here. If you watch a video, whether you like it or you don't like it, please do the

YouTuber a favor and smash the like button. Let me just see. It's right here. This is thumbs up button. Go ahead and click it.

I do enjoy his content, so I'm going to give it a thumbs up. But if you don't like his content, you could always give it a thumb down just to let the

YouTuber know you don't like the content. And I personally believe this is very helpful for us

YouTubers because it shows us the kind of stuff you want to see more of and always good to leave a comment as well and all that kind of thing.

But that's a little bit of etiquette, you know, just to help your favorite YouTuber out and there you go.

It's all love here, baby. It's all love here. One more thing before we get into it. There was a special occasion.

I don't know if you noticed, but earlier this morning, the AD Robles YouTube channel hit half a million views.

That's right. Half a million views. Thank you so much. You guys are beautiful. Thank you so much.

You know, I just the AD Robles YouTube channel is all about love. It's all love here, baby.

That's what I'm talking about. And I appreciate each and every one of you who's ever commented on a video, shared a video, liked a video, reached out to me directly to criticize me or to offer encouragement or even to offer some correction.

There's been a few times where people have done that, and I greatly appreciate it, baby. And I even want to thank people who do videos about me.

There's, of course, not that many of them, but I thank you, Steven Anderson. I really do. Now let's get into it.

One of the things that Steven Anderson asks in this video to AD Robles is he wants to know, why is it that I always say the phrase,

I think? He says, AD Robles thinks this, and AD Robles thinks that, and he doesn't care what

AD Robles thinks. He only cares what the Bible says, and I, for one, completely understand that.

Let me just answer this question. There are two reasons why I use the phrase, I think. One of the reasons is when

I'm giving you my opinion. If I'm giving you my opinion, I'm typically going to say, I think, or in my opinion, or I believe, or something like that, and, you know,

I don't expect anyone to take my opinion as authoritative. That would be ridiculous. I definitely do not think.

I'm just a YouTuber. I'm not a pastor. I'm not a congressman. I'm not a governor. I'm none of these things, baby.

I'm just a YouTuber, just a humble man in the pews, that kind of thing. So that's one reason. And then the other reason, when

I'm talking about the Scripture, I use I think as a bit of a shorthand. You know,

I think the Scripture teaches X, and sometimes it's very clear, and sometimes it's a little bit more of a complicated argument, that kind of thing.

Good and necessary consequence, and all of that kind of thing. But that's why I use it, because I'm trying to display a little bit of humility.

Since I don't think that my interpretations are authoritative, I just want to say

I think just to provide a little bit of, I don't know, wiggle room in my authority.

You know, when I say that the Bible teaches that a murderer should be executed, oftentimes

I'll say, I think the Bible teaches that a murderer should be executed. Now, that's a very clear teaching in my opinion, but I'll still sometimes say the word

I think just as a shorthand to let everybody know that I am not the Pope, and that's why

I do it. I hope I didn't offend you, Steven Anderson. I don't, of course, expect you to take my opinion as gospel, but I do have strong opinions, and so I often temper it with the phrase

I think. I hope that helps, and of course, if you have any further questions, I'd be glad to do an even exchange again.

But before we do that, I've got a question for you, my friend. Oh, I most certainly do,

Mr. Anderson. Right around minute 13, you're talking about the law of God, and this is my topic.

I love it. I love the law of God. Let's hear what he has to say. Yes it that way.

Yes, it could be rebellious, you know, like public worship of idols and things like that. What he's talking about here is where I say that when it comes to adultery and stoning adulterers, in ancient

Israel, the kind of adulterers that'd be stoned would be the kind that they were publicly rebelling against God, because it'd be very difficult to find two or more witnesses to an adulterous affair unless it was very flamboyant, in your face, in the public square, that kind of thing.

Now, I didn't intend to say that that was literally the only kind of abortion that would be—er, not abortion—whoa, what am

I saying? I didn't mean to say that it was the only kind of adultery that could be prosecuted, but for me, it's very difficult to see that many prosecutable adulteries happening in private.

It'd be very weird to see that you'd have two or more witnesses in a private adulterous affair very often, but if you did, and someone brought charges and all that kind of thing, and everything kind of fell into place, and you had the witnesses and all of that, oh, of course, it could be prosecuted.

I wasn't saying that it couldn't, I'm just saying that the majority of the cases would have to be something very public and flamboyant.

So I hope that you got a bonus question answered, you got a bonus question answered, but that's okay. Here we go, let's listen in, because this is something that's, personally,

I'm very confused about, and it's quite spicy. But you could also, the possibility of it being discovered that way—now, there's other—

Check out, check out the screen, he's got his little mouse here, I've got my little mouse here, let's play a little game of cat and mouse, shall we?

Situations that he's not thinking of, of course, he's probably not nearly familiar enough with the law. Hey, that's not very nice there,

Mr. Anderson, hey, that's not very nice at all. You know, it's funny, because he's about to talk about the law of God, where if a damsel is raped in the field, she doesn't die, but if she's in the city, she needs to cry out, so we know that it's a rape, that's something he's about to talk about, which, it's not very nice to say

I'm not familiar with that law, baby, especially when I've many, many times on YouTube referenced that law, in fact, back in the

Kavanaugh hearings, that's something I talked about quite often, this law about the difference between a damsel being seized by a rapist in the field versus in the city and all that kind of stuff,

I'm very familiar with that, but hey, that's okay, I don't expect you, you probably haven't watched that video and all that,

I don't take it as an insult, but hey, that's not very nice. That's not what

I want to talk about, though, there's something spicy about to come, and let's listen in. A young woman, a virgin, was raped in the field by a person, forced to commit sexual intercourse or whatever, she, he could be executed, but she wouldn't be.

Got that right, baby. If it was in the city, and she did not cry out for help, which is relevant today because you have these people that claim they were raped, you know, like 20, 30 years after the fact.

Did you hear that? Relevant for today, baby. What does that mean?

I'm a little confused, let's make sure we heard that correctly, it's just a joke, because I know

I heard it correctly, but let's just play it again, because I'm interested to hear what he has to say here.

There's other situations that he's not thinking of, of course he's probably not familiar enough with the law, that if a young woman, a virgin, was raped in the field by a person, forced to commit sexual intercourse or whatever, she, he could be executed, but she wouldn't be.

Hold on a second, look at the smile that comes across his face when he references this, look at this, this is interesting, let's listen, let's listen.

If it was in the city, and she did not cry out for help, which is relevant today because you have these people that claim they were raped, you know, like 20, 30 years after the fact, if she did not cry out for help, and it was not out in the fields, out where nobody was around, she was executed too.

I have to admit, I'm a little speechless, and I don't really know what to make of that.

You see, because I agree, that's a very relevant law to today's situation, and in fact,

I've referenced it many times in cases where we've got women that years and decades later claim, like the

Kavanaugh case, that was one of the things I was saying that, you know, this is a very important law to consider, in the law of God, of course, for our modern context and how

I personally believe that this is a good example of applying the general equity of the civil law for Israel in today's modern context.

Because you can't find a law in the civil code of Israel that says that if a woman brings a charge decades later that it's not admissible or that she should be executed too, or anything like that.

You can't find a law like that, but what you do is you take the case laws that you have in the Old Testament law and you use those as an example and as a framework, and then you apply the general equity to today, baby, and that's why

Kavanaugh is innocent. That's right, Kavanaugh is innocent.

And so I'm just a little confused. Let's listen to it one last time. See the little smile that comes on his face, the little smirk,

Mr. Anderson, and I just want to know, what do you mean by relevant for today? I think a lot of us are a bit confused, given the tenor and the thrust of your criticism of yours truly.

She, he could be executed, but she... Look at the smile, here it comes, here it comes.

If it was in the city and she did not cry out for help, which is relevant today because you have these people that claim they were raped, you know, like 20, 30 years after the fact.

My question to you, Mr. Anderson, I hope you don't mind this give and take here. I've answered a couple of yours and I would like you to answer one of mine.

What do you mean that this law is irrelevant for today? Anyway, I hope you found this video helpful.

I hope you found it smooth, and I'll see you in the next one. Hey, if you want to see more

Smooth AD, I would definitely appreciate a message, a comment, or anything like that.

Give this video a thumbs up and we'll do more Smooth AD videos for you in the next few weeks.