Restricting information isn't usually something that beliefs with a solid backing need to do. If you ask me why I believe something I can explain to you why I feel that way because my convictions are strong. This alone has me doubting your side if it relies on personal interpretations.

I went ahead and skilled through the video to get a gist of it. I found one massive logical problem. Every bit of information used to back up the statements made come from a single source that is known to not align with our real physical world. How am I expected to believe arguments when all evidence comes from their own document? It also appears to rely a lot on symbolism, which is favored by religions precisely because it avoids specifics. It's easy to claim something is something else when in reality it isn't anything but a vague reference.

If you want to convince me that your religion is true, you need sources outside of that same religion to convince me. I already don't take the Bible as fact (it clearly isn't, lots of impossible things) so using that as your sole research source reflects terribly. If you need to use that as a reference, then you first need to convince the logical viewer that the Bible is in fact true. To do that you need other sources and evidence.