Responding to concerns with my Genesis 19 video (CW: SA)

No video

Responding to concerns with my Genesis 19 video (CW: SA)

Рет қаралды 11,595

Dan McClellan

Күн бұрын

Пікірлер: 356

@js-sp9bz 7 ай бұрын

It's very telling that conservatives assume God must be very upset about the gay sex and not the raping part.

@Goodbrod 7 ай бұрын

Oooof. Wow. That hit.

@LaxinPhilly 7 ай бұрын

I need a trigger warning for this. Hot coffee just exited through my nose at a high rate of speed. Thanks for that.

@Whosoever446 7 ай бұрын

Lmfao

@Guishan_Lingyou 7 ай бұрын

This observation should be shocking.

@fariesz6786 6 ай бұрын

it's only SA if we allow her to speak up 👀

@iamfiefo 7 ай бұрын

"Sorry, Dan. Taking surveys? Reading other people's opinions? Doing research? Actually trying to learn the original text in its original language? Pshhh! No thanks! Sounds like too much work." -Bible apologists, probably

@busylivingnotdying 7 ай бұрын

Good point. I would like to add (to what Dan said) that those opinions are EDUCATED opinions. Educated by STUDY and text analysis so that it is "our best understanding" A general survey of what "people" think about a passage regardless of their understanding of textual criticism, would just yield a consensus of VALUES most people share (the general zeitgeist) and the commenter in the clip above is right in criticizing that approach to bible reading (as he unknowingly does the same himself)

@matthewnitz8367 7 ай бұрын

Apologetics is always rather fascinating to me in that respect. KZfaq channels like Testify that are willing to put in hundreds of hours reading apologetic works about why scholars are confused and not doing their job right, and think those apologetic texts make them an expert in the field. But discount the thousands of hours of training done by actual scholars as "echo chambers" that just reinforce existing beliefs and are biased against the Bible. It seems like there must be some sort of projection going on there to think the entire field of Biblical scholarship are the ones trying to twist the texts to say whatever they want them to say.

@jon4574 7 ай бұрын

When the apologist starts with a snarky, pejorative ad hom, you know it's gonna be good, LOL!

@PIA-tj5hc 7 ай бұрын

Right…lol

@MichaelWalker-de8nf 7 ай бұрын

Dan is metal 🤟

@MichaelWalker-de8nf 7 ай бұрын

Dan is metal 🤟

@mvieke 7 ай бұрын

The slow, song-song speech pattern is very effective on kindergartners

@THUNDERSTUD 7 ай бұрын

Poor dude didnt know what 'consensus' meant and Dan hits him with the tergiversating oof.

@CharlesPayet 7 ай бұрын

Thank you for spelling that, as I couldn’t figure it out to look up. But now I need to find a way to use that. 😁

@alexmcd378 7 ай бұрын

Well he did use hermeneutics first. I don't know if he used it right, but ye gods did it sound out of place. Like he dragged out his biggest word for this argument

@icollectstories5702 2 ай бұрын

He probably looked up "consensus" but not "academic consensus." If he really is as proudly uneducated as he claims, he doesn't put any weight in academics. When people do this to me, I usually try to see why they think I make no sense. Often, I am merely uninformed.

@johna1427 7 ай бұрын

This dude is painful to watch. His condescension is way beneath you, Dan, but I’m glad you responded once again reflecting your intellectual honesty and character.

@smugwendigo5123 6 ай бұрын

The old guy is really asking for a slap, like he is making me irrationally angryb

@minaguta4147 7 ай бұрын

"I don't drink coffee." 😆 These guys just love the self-own.

@radosawpapierski8610 7 ай бұрын

Well, he missed that Dan is not a theogian, missing the fact that Dan is Mormon is a lesser offense, I guess.

@1926jqg 7 ай бұрын

Laughed too hard at that one.

@andrewbuswell6010 7 ай бұрын

‘If prejudice and hatred was good enough for granpappy it’s good enough for me’ attitude.

@jimhunt1592 7 ай бұрын

This creator is a good example of what is going wrong with society. People thinking their lack of education somehow makes their opinion more correct and more knowledgeable than the conclusions of a person who reads, studies, looks at multiple opinions, and uses this data to make reasoned choices. Education doesn't always make you correct, but lack of education rarely makes you correct.

@philsphan4414 7 ай бұрын

It’s worst in science. My wife of 40 years airily dismisses anything I say about the field in which I hold an advanced degree. Science is the only field where people take “alternative” seriously. I want to use an alternative carpenter next time. They don’t buy into the whole conspiracy of “big nail.”

@schen7913 7 ай бұрын

The problem is really in education itself. Schools teach people that facts learned third-hand are valuable and make "us" smarter. That's not how it works in the real world, yet schools and grades mislead people into thinking that having a set of facts is all that is important. Schools don't teach people that a fact you can personally confirm through your own personal understanding of the sources is way more valuable than a fact that you read from any odd expert -- even from Dan McClellan. Authority figures should _inform_ us, not rule us -- otherwise all we get into is a battle between authority figures. Churches just make it worse. There it's _all_ about harmonizing with third-party dogma.

@jimhunt1592 7 ай бұрын

@@philsphan4414I understand where you are coming from. Doctorates in Neurosciences and Pharmacology and I still have to tolerate a father-in-law making comments about covid vaccines and how that it is little more than the flu.

@clayhamilton3551 7 ай бұрын

Well Jesus didn’t go to college so check mate

@ReallyBadJuJu 7 ай бұрын

“I have a foreboding of an America in my children's or grandchildren's time -- when the United States is a service and information economy; when nearly all the manufacturing industries have slipped away to other countries; when awesome technological powers are in the hands of a very few, and no one representing the public interest can even grasp the issues; when the people have lost the ability to set their own agendas or knowledgeably question those in authority; when, clutching our crystals and nervously consulting our horoscopes, our critical faculties in decline, unable to distinguish between what feels good and what's true, we slide, almost without noticing, back into superstition and darkness... The dumbing down of American is most evident in the slow decay of substantive content in the enormously influential media, the 30 second sound bites (now down to 10 seconds or less), lowest common denominator programming, credulous presentations on pseudoscience and superstition, but especially a kind of celebration of ignorance” Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark - 1995

@digitaljanus 7 ай бұрын

Original creator's closing "argument" was literally "I'm an uneducated dumb-dumb" after thoroughly demonstrating the point. I almost want to stand up and applaud that level of self-own.

@JesseLeeHumphry 4 ай бұрын

The problem is that evangelicals like him don't ACTUALLY think they're dumb, they know academics and scientists think they're dumb. So when they say "I know I'm stupid and uneducated", it's a rhetorical device; they don't see themselves that way. They think they're smarter. That's why his tone and rhythm when he rattles off chapters and verses is, if you spent enough time in church, "authoritative".

@ChristianCarrizales 7 ай бұрын

I find that apologists don’t like the term “academic consensus” … so I tend to use it every chance I get 😂

@radosawpapierski8610 7 ай бұрын

Actually, I quite like it as a collective noun for academics (taken out of this snarky context, though)

@rahrahrobbbieee 7 ай бұрын

🤺🤺🤺🤺😎😎

@fariesz6786 6 ай бұрын

the "murder of crows" part though.. managed to score a tripple bingo of ad hominem, disingenuity, and ornithophobia ( ò)

@wyspowillow4219 7 ай бұрын

Tergiversate: “to make conflicting or evasive statements; equivocate.” Noted…!

@AnimaOrphei 6 ай бұрын

I saw that too. Lol learned a new word woohoo!

@dwightdhansen 7 ай бұрын

Imagine the disappointment that your hate isn't biblically supported.

@OrigenalHeretic 7 ай бұрын

Dan, I am so grateful for your work and your willingness to share it via social media. Thank you!

@andrewmatern3178 7 ай бұрын

tergiversate vb (intr) 1. to change sides or loyalties; apostatize 2. to be evasive or ambiguous; equivocate

@lisaboban 7 ай бұрын

Thank you. Needed that.

@rahrahrobbbieee 7 ай бұрын

👍🏼👍🏼

@andrewmatern3178 7 ай бұрын

@lisaboban I figured I wouldn't be the only one lol

@spinnwebe_ 7 ай бұрын

I had to come in to find the comment proclaiming on tergiversate

@cureton04 5 ай бұрын

I feel I have a pretty large vocabulary but I had to stop on that one and hit the dictionary. That's a 10 dollar word for sure.

@joshuacromley7439 7 ай бұрын

The fact he drifts into speculation about Dan says it all

@johnpetry5321 7 ай бұрын

Well, that was an excellent display of why some people should pay much closer attention to what they are responding to . This gentleman did not read with discernment and made a foolish attack. Dr. McClellan made a careful response to the attack. It was wonderful to observe.

@justinthor5438 7 ай бұрын

Dude didn't bring a knife to a gunfight, dude only brought ammo for Dan's metaphorical gun.

@MichaelMarko 7 ай бұрын

I actually heard this about the “hospitality” interpretation 15 or 20 years ago. So, I trust that it isn’t novel or limited to a few scholar rebels.

@MusicalRaichu 7 ай бұрын

I found a reference from 1977 "A number of scholars in recent times have argued that the basic sin ... was ... a flagrant breach of ... hospitality" Charles Baker, David Field, Brian Hoare, Tom Jones, Gordon Landreth, Ken Taylor. “Homoxesuality”. Third Way, 1(25)7-10, December 1977.

@lde-m8688 7 ай бұрын

Yeah, and these kinds of folk like the person in that video have the same apologist arguments they always have. I heard this idea back in the early 90s when I was in college in a study of religion class. The apologist haven't changed their argument one iota.

@lisaboban 7 ай бұрын

It's not. First heard that in the late 70s at a Baptist college in West Virginia by an excellent Bible scholar who regularly read to us from original language texts. Good scholars are everywhere. Dan stands on the shoulders of giants.

@TestUser-cf4wj 7 ай бұрын

The obvious immorality of giving one's virgin daughters over to be raped can not _possibly_ be a lesser infraction than allowing consensual same-sex intimacy. Based on that aspect alone, the text is clearly not fundamentally about homosexuality. Even if we take into account the diminished status of females and children that was a baked-in feature of the culture at the time, the loss of the daughters' virginity would make them unmarriable and therefore fit only to be wed to the rapists (impossible if the rape was perpetrated by a group), to find employment as prostitutes or to remain with their father and thus become a burden to his household. It is a massive financial and reputational hit that is being offered in exchange for sparing the guests from being assaulted, so why would this kind of an offer be made if the issue was simply about a disapproved of sexual act between adult, male same sex participants? To put it plainly, _if you guys want to sin, go right ahead, because it's not going to be my soul facing judgment._ Instead, if we read as the apologists do, a man sets his virgin daughters out to be sexually abused rather than let some grown men knowingly incur the wrath of God on themselves. It's plain that, at best, the apologists and evangelicals are focusing on the wrong aspect of the story and, at worst, are simply shoehorning the story into their personal feelings about homosexuality.

@MusicalRaichu 7 ай бұрын

@@TestUser-cf4wj there are other factors to consider in Lot's defense - consent was the father's to give so it wouldn't be doing anything wrong - penetrating a woman did not denigrate them beyond their natural inferiority as women as it would a man - they were betrothed to men of the town which might restrain them from wronging their own definitely unacceptable by today's standards. given the limited options in a dreadful situation, the lesser wrong in its day.

@Noneya5555 7 ай бұрын

That content creator's argument is one of the dumbest, more irrelevant arguments I've seen. He reads a contemporary version of the Bible, and has the arrogance to argue with an accredited scholar who has studied not only the ancient texts, but also the languages in which they were written, and the changes made by later authors, scribes and editors. And he does this while acknowledging his ignorance in the field and of the subject matter! The Dunning-Kruger effect describes this creator's argument to a tee. 🤣 Btw, in mocking Dan's reference to academic consensus, the creator is the one lobbing the ad hominems. He reminds me of the actual meaning behind the saying "A little knowledge [ie, almost complete ignorance] is a dangerous thing".

@pgbollwerk 7 ай бұрын

Amazing work sir. That apologist’s false humility was infuriating.

@samuel.thornton 7 ай бұрын

So much is revealed about the apologetic style of hermeneutic when he just randomly starts pulling passages in order to support a conclusion he's already made. "This is about same-sex, therefore the other verses about same-sex are relevant, and somehow also is this verse about divorce." It's just so wild, and such a terrible hermeneutic.

@apachewraith 3 ай бұрын

We're all negotiating the text to fit our worldview.

@mattied9203 7 ай бұрын

Dan making me look up words. 😆

@PIA-tj5hc 7 ай бұрын

Right..lol

@QuinnPrice 7 ай бұрын

Apologists have only one goal and speak to only one audience. Their goal is to let true believers know there's nothing here. They're not in the truth business but in throwing smoke that keeps true believers away from directly evaluating contradictory information.

@TheSpanishInquisition87 7 ай бұрын

"I don't drink coffee." 😂😂😂 I had a literal spit-take. (Yes, it was coffee.)

@cedarwaxwing3509 7 ай бұрын

Context: Dan is LDS. They don’t drink caffeinated beverages. The subtle jab here is that Dan has mentioned his religious affiliation in several videos. The creator of the response video starts off his rant as if he’s very familiar with Dan (“everybody’s favorite theologian…”) which is not only a wonderfully passive/aggressive ad hominem attack on its own, but also suggests a familiarity with Dan’s videos that the creator obviously does not have.

@cedarwaxwing3509 7 ай бұрын

@@MrMortal_Ra If you are asking why LDS folks don’t drink caffeinated beverages, my answer is a big “I don’t know.” I’m not LDS, but I have had coworkers who are members of that church and I know that is something they avoid. I’ve never asked/researched the reason why. I just found the whole coffee point indicative of Dan’s subtle sense of humor and -as I speculated - a little jab at the apologist creator’s self-claimed familiarity with Dan’s videos. A larger question, for me, is to wonder how DM squares his love of ‘data over dogma’ with the Book of Mormon, which I’m sure - with his level of linguistic expertise - he knows is a nineteenth century creation, golden tablet stories notwithstanding. Perhaps he has done some videos on that before or discussed it in his podcast. I started watching his videos relatively recently, and I know he has a huge back-catalog of them that I haven’t watched. 🙂

@joabtheharmless4051 7 ай бұрын

@@MrMortal_Ra The traditional avoidance of tea and coffee in LDS circles is based on the "Word of Wisdom" section in Doctrine and Covenants (mostly authored by Smith, and understood to be divinely inspired), as interpreted by the church: Quoting from the LDS church's website to make sure I represent its official position accurately: " Although coffee enjoyed wide approval by the mid-1830s, including within the medical community, a few radical reformers such as Sylvester Graham and William A. Alcott preached against the use of any stimulants whatsoever, including coffee and tea.19 The Word of Wisdom rejected the idea of a substitute for alcohol. “Hot drinks”-which Latter-day Saints understood to mean coffee and tea20-“are not for the body or belly,” the revelation explained.21 Instead, the revelation encouraged the consumption of basic staples of the kind that had sustained life for millennia. The revelation praised “all wholesome herbs” and explained that “all grain is for the use of man & of beasts to be the staff of life … as also the fruit of the vine that which beareth fruit whether in the ground or above ground.” In keeping with an earlier revelation endorsing the eating of meat, the Word of Wisdom reminded the Saints that the flesh of beasts and fowls was given “for the use of man with thanksgiving,” but added the caution that meat was “to be used sparingly” and not to excess.22 " I don't know the details of how the interpretation leading from "hot drinks are not for the body or belly" to the current teachings regarding authorised and banned drinks emerged. The footnotes are just referencing bibliographic resources, and I don't have the time to go through them. But see Doctrine and Covenants 89 (vv 5-10) for the relevant section. As an aside, I don't know whether this is why Dan McClellan doesn't drink coffee, since he largely keeps his personal religiosity and practices private (even in interviews on more "confessional" channels than his), and from the few LDS I know, practices seem to somewhat vary on that front; just a quick google search redirects to articles like: "Why more and more young Latter-day Saints are drinking coffee". So Dan McClellan not drinking coffee might be due to doctrine, but also to personal taste or other reasons. (More data are needed, as the wise like to say!)

@jenniferhunter4074 7 ай бұрын

@@MrMortal_Ra Mormon rules. They aren't supposed to drink caffeinated beverages. So coffee is a sin. Dan is a practicing Mormon in good standing and he observes these rules. It's no different from other religions. catholics have rules specific to their particular faith tradition as well. For example, for Catholics, you need to have confession because that's a sacrament. These are just things that the higher ups set up as doctrines and all the followers have to observe these rules. "In Doctrine and Covenants 89:8-9, the Lord forbids our using tobacco and “hot drinks,” which, Church leaders have explained, means tea and coffee. Modern prophets and apostles have frequently taught that the Word of Wisdom warns us against substances that can harm us or enslave us to addiction." Oh.. and it may be that Dan gains comfort from his religion. It may be a source of how to view the world because we all have frameworks we look at the world through. It may help how he acts in relationships with family and friends and associates. We all have them. Yes, I as an atheist, have a lens by which I look at the world. I'm far more materialist and consequentialist but every part of my life experience flavors how I interpret the raw input of this world into comprehensible information. As long as people understand and are aware of this, and they can respect the other human beings (other living creatures hopefully), we can all sort of muddle together. Dr. McClellan the professional academic has trained himself to be academic with regards to these texts but Dan McClellan, the husband, father, friend, son has a right to engage in those activities that help him ground himself in living. There are loads of stupid and ignorant atheists. I'm continuously learning the depths of my ignorance.. and I was a Christian for a long time. Too long.

@TheSpanishInquisition87 7 ай бұрын

@@MrMortal_Ra You would have to ask Dan, but I don't believe that he discusses his personal beliefs publicly.

@natradvicfire3102 7 ай бұрын

"Tergiversating" is a $50 word if I ever heard one (Inflation is crazy these days). Thank you for elevating the discourse and challenging us to learn something new every day!

@MichaelMarko 7 ай бұрын

I got news! If you abstract and practice the things Dan teaches you can apply these principals to any situation, text, cultural practice, etc. Ana there would will be transformed. But take it slow. It can be unsettling.

@robertbaher3454 7 ай бұрын

Dan, I'm continually amazed at how coherently you present your well-researched evidence!

@Tmanaz480 7 ай бұрын

Snark vs data. Data wins.

@johnrichardson7629 7 ай бұрын

He doesn't know what 'consensus' means. What a maroon.

@benroberts2222 7 ай бұрын

I think this part was meant to be funny, but it's hard to tell

@dhobonov 7 ай бұрын

What an ignoranimus. -Bugs Bunny

@bryana8357 7 ай бұрын

Soooooo, I'm thinking it's more than seven, huh?

@scyldscefing3913 7 ай бұрын

You do great work. Thank you.

@FernLovebond 7 ай бұрын

Mad props for correct (and exceptionally apt) use of the intransitive verb "tergiversate." I've never heard anyone else actually use this before and I love you for it.

@tchristianphoto 7 ай бұрын

Leviticus 20: Part of a purity law that was arguably never followed in its day and was for show; also not followed by modern-day Jews or Christians at all (shellfish, mixed fabrics, etc.). Romans 1: Not against homosexuality but against the practice of idolatry by people Paul never met. 1 Timothy 1: Also not about homosexuality, and not written by Paul. "I'm going to have to go with the Bible on this one": Yet he refuses to listen to what the Biblical text is actually saying, preferring to not challenge his old, blatantly erroneous presuppositions.

@jasonsmall5602 7 ай бұрын

Observant modern-day Jews do follow the prohibitions on shellfish and mixed fabrics, though I don't see that in Leviticus 20. And they follow other prohibitions in Leviticus 20, though there is no death penalty.

@nates9029 7 ай бұрын

"I am uneducated but....." When you say something like that, you should probably stop there and reevaluate the things you are saying instead of insisting that you are right. I am never quite sure why people like that are so afraid of educating themselves and listening to others (particularly experts in a particular field) and instead just insist that they are right.

@lnsflare1 7 ай бұрын

He was trying for the suave "I'm just a simple country lawyer" effect, but ended up merely shouting "DURRRRR" at the top of his lungs instead.

@MalekMagicianPR 7 ай бұрын

Dan: dropped mic! 🫳 🎤

@rickhasthoughtsiguess6541 6 ай бұрын

“I don’t drink coffee” killed me

@SimonDaumMusic 7 ай бұрын

Always love your cool, funny and yet so well grounded responses

@CharlesPayet 7 ай бұрын

Lawdy, I *love* the way Dan kindly, firmly, and with actual sources puts these people in their place. If only there wasn’t such a desperate need for his work.

@deadmegatron01 7 ай бұрын

"a consensus of academics" is totally a phrase I'm, going to start using now.

@louzander 7 ай бұрын

Dan, I've been working in analytics and data analysis for the last 10 years and during my MA in English studied Digital Humanities, which includes utilizing digital means to pull large scale themes from bodies of work and/or datasets. I would be delighted to volunteer my time to help clean, migrate, or parse any data (using software, not personal judgment, so as to minimize as much as possible the impact of my own biases) from the surveys on consensus you mentioned here. In fact, I'm so interested in your research that if I can volunteer (within my own time constraints, I'm not in a PhD program I'm just a fan of scholarship) can ever volunteer my time to help with the minutiae (so?) of your work I'd be happy to do so!

@squiddwizzard8850 7 ай бұрын

What data analysis tools do you use? I'm very interested in a paralell evaluation, but I am not talented enough to assist. I'm currently in the last semester of my Master's.

@sinocte 7 ай бұрын

You know, I truly appreciate how you are able to remain calm, straightforward, and yet absolutely destroy these people lol. Thank you for your clear view on the book. I'm an atheist, and you're still one of my favorite channels because you present good data, and not feelings and assumptions.

@CharlesPayet 7 ай бұрын

Same here.

@joesmith4098 7 ай бұрын

Thank you Dr. McClellan for the new word, I can not wait to sneak it into a conversation

@nevernerevarine8071 7 ай бұрын

They HAVE to stop calling you a theologian lmfao, it gives it away too early they dont know what they are talking about

@jackaltwinky77 7 ай бұрын

Love the not so subtle brag that the SBL gave you an award for your scholarship.

@alexmcd378 7 ай бұрын

I just realized your camera isn't flipping the video. That's a Bizaro shirt. Nice!

@sammysamlovescats 7 ай бұрын

Honestly I forgot you were mormon for a moment and then you said "I don't drink coffee" so bluntly I almost choked on my water

@alexmcd378 7 ай бұрын

One thing I really appreciate aside from the quality on your videos, is the length. I don't have the stomach to listen to these guys ramble about ignorance and hate for very long anymore.

@PIA-tj5hc 7 ай бұрын

These unlearned people tickle me when they go into the academic world. It’s so funny😂

@aras_driftless 6 ай бұрын

Your snarky responses are always on point and kill me every time 😂

@HMarcBower 7 ай бұрын

It's been a long time since I have heard a word for the first time. Tergiversating. You have embiggened my vocabulary as well as my knowledge, so thanks :)

@michaelbell3181 7 ай бұрын

"You The Man!" Thanks!

@lesliemccann628 5 ай бұрын

Ooh a new word, ter-something! Damn I love these smack downs, thanks for another good one Dan!

@ritawing1064 7 ай бұрын

Masterpiece of lucidity, well done yet again!

@CanadianAnglican 7 ай бұрын

Dan always brings knowledge and I enjoy that he keeps it classy.

@maviswilhelm8390 7 ай бұрын

Damn, you’re fun!

@profchrisheard 7 ай бұрын

Excellent response, Dan. As an additional footnote, we might note that the NT passage that does construe the “sin of Sodom” as sexual-Jude 1:7-literally says the people of Sodom desired “other [heteros] flesh.” What the author of Jude finds objectionable is humans pursing sexual contact with angels; the verse seems to me irrelevant to homosexual desire among humans. In this Jude 1:7 is apparently the converse of Jude 1:6 which seems to allude to Genesis 6:1-2, interpreting that passage as having something to do with divine (angelic) having sexual relations with human beings. (I know there are other ways to spin that Gen 6 passage, but pretty clearly the author of Jude shares the interpretation developed in the Enoch literature.)

@ericreed4535 7 ай бұрын

Well, he kind of asked for it and had it coming. Very clearly explained. I won't expect this one answers the bell for another round. Decisive.

@matthewschafer6359 7 ай бұрын

The bible is interesting and all but I watch this channel to learn to words. "Tergiversate" is a new one for me.

@leadsheep 7 ай бұрын

In the last three days...Dan has absolutely murdered an astonishing number of people. Keep up the good work! 😂

@integrationalpolytheism 6 ай бұрын

It's unusual for me to come across an English word I've NEVER heard before, but there it is. Now I can add tergiversation to my personal lexicon!

@dannyboyakadandaman504furl9 7 ай бұрын

Dan the Sodom and Gomorrah story reminds me of Zeus and Hermes myth.

@OldMotherLogo 3 ай бұрын

Dan, I often wonder why you address these folks but then towards the end I realized that in listening to your response I am better able to craft my own responses to wrong-headed ideas that are promoted in the name of the Bible. Thank you for continuing to stand up for evidence, critical thinking, and standing against weaponizing the Bible. It is also refreshing to hear a person of faith doing this and not just atheists. Deep respect.

@GoodieWhiteHat 7 ай бұрын

Dan and his six friends have done a lot of work!

@nilssturman5258 14 күн бұрын

Mic drop. 😀 My favourite video so far... Yes, those weirdoes do like to disparage academics when they disagree with their conclusions. It's anti-intellectualism in its purest form.

@CPaulCounts 7 ай бұрын

I learned a new word today!

@maskedsaiyan1738 7 ай бұрын

Why do so many apologists start off with a level of snark towards people they disagree with? Isn’t Pride a deadly sin?

@JopJio 7 ай бұрын

It's because they want to make the opponent look unreliable and biased for their Christian viewers. For example they call Ehrman always secular and atheist. But they won't tell you that he was an evangelical Christian himself.

@chadkent327 7 ай бұрын

Depends on what tradition you’re coming from. Someone correct me if I’m wrong but I don’t believe the seven deadly sins have biblical basis and they are rooted in Catholic tradition and dogma. The tradition I can put of viewed pride (and other negative emotions such as anger) as not necessarily good or bad but it depended on how they were deployed. For example, pride in family, religion, country was considered “good” while pride in yourself was “bad.” At a guess this apologist probably views his own prideful behavior as “good” pride in his religious beliefs. I find it unbearable to be honest.

@mcdonaldsorwhatevers 7 ай бұрын

@@MrMortal_Ra Some of his opponents actually do have stupid arguments though

@JopJio 7 ай бұрын

@@mcdonaldsorwhatevers then criticise the argument, not the person

@gypsieladie 7 ай бұрын

Its giving unhinged Disney villain.

@tdingman1988 7 ай бұрын

I have no collage background and it was much later in life when, realized even without that on my own that The Dogmas, inconsistencies, forced loopholes, and incomplete context being fed to the general public wasnt adding up. So I started Following a more secular sorce of my information that wasnt insterted with the obvious agenda of an evengelicals. Now granted i take a fair bit with a Grain of salt. But i listen for that Common mention without any prior aqauntances between these Phd earned Authors. - I very much appreciate your work Dan.

@ronjones1414 7 ай бұрын

The issue is that most people literally lack the cognitive ability to separate the two ideas. To them, gay bad, Genesis 19 says gay, Genesis 19 gay bad.

@smugwendigo5123 6 ай бұрын

It reminds me of those boxes at fire departments and police stations that people can put babys in and the box sets off an alarm so they will be taken care of and kept warm and not die, the point is to keep babys from dying, but everyone focuses on the act of abandoning the baby and criticizing the box for "encouraging" child abandonment like, that's definitely not the boxes purpose

@swd37sd 7 ай бұрын

That dude climbed into an intellectual cage match with Dan and got TKO'd in the first 30 seconds.

@tezzerii 6 ай бұрын

"I'm sorry, I know I'm uneducated, but I'm gonna have to go with the bible on this one" - Isn't that exactly what Dan is doing ? And doing much better. Dan's last statement is a killer !

@honder1866 7 ай бұрын

Ex-Mo Episcopalian Matthew Turner of Kansas here. Coffee is delicious!

@THUGGO773 7 ай бұрын

So glad to have found this channel

@davidroberts6909 7 ай бұрын

I got very excited hearing about your survey work. I've been looking for a good source of data for the opinion of biblical scholars' position on various subjects.

@probablynotmyname8521 7 ай бұрын

You could reconcile what dan says by understanding it and responding to what he actually says not what you think he says. I often wonder why people have these comprehension issues.

@CharlesPayet 7 ай бұрын

Because if they actually understood it, they’d be forced to acknowledge they’re wrong and change their mind. Which would punch a huge hole in the armor of their faith.

@henrygordon1 7 ай бұрын

Holy moley - "Tergiversating" for the win!

@timothywilliams8530 7 ай бұрын

Damn, grandpa has a really good cam set up.

@trueliberty6033 7 ай бұрын

Dan You need to merch a shirt that says, "Dan, definitely not a Theologian" 😂 Or "Dan, Novo Theologian" Or "theologiDan" Those are all free by the way no need to credit me😂

@daniel.santos 7 ай бұрын

To preface, I like listening to Dan and Data/Dogma. I like his guests and appreciate the scholarship. One blind spot that’s not addressed for me is this OP’s question of “where is the academic consensus?” Study bibles are usually just one commentator writing for a particular book. The editors and other commentators may not agree with an interpretation even within one study bible. Commentaries are the same for their respective collections. Now, Dan mentioning the surveys would make the most sense. He said he’s putting one together, but until it’s done, “academic consensus” is weak. If there are already surveys, just cite those! Not to mention, consensus can change. He knows this too, so it should really be “CURRENT academic consensus.”

@joestfrancois 7 ай бұрын

Jeremiah 4:15 "For a voice declares from Dan"

@longc35 7 ай бұрын

Just found this channel the other day and I’ve got to say I quite enjoy learning about the Bible, specifically learning what the various authors were most likely trying to impart on the readers as well as the historical context of those messages. Keep up the good work.

@InquisitiveBible 7 ай бұрын

Thanks for doing this, Dan.

@RandomSelectGaming 4 ай бұрын

Suggesting that dan drinks coffee is Hilariously uninformed 😂 Also a consensus of academics is quite funny.

@RobertLesac 7 ай бұрын

Dan, thank you for your work!

@hank5452 7 ай бұрын

Dan, You're my hero.

@jon4574 7 ай бұрын

The Bible reads that the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom and knowledge, and the fruit of the Spirit is self-control, yet all these apologists seem to expose those words as meritless lies.

@gabrieledwards1066 7 ай бұрын

3:45 Love the humble brag! Well deserved, Dan!

@azurejester 7 ай бұрын

Always very patient and immaculately professional and precise, delivered with cites and sources delivered neutrally and fair... But sometimes the ad-libs get me,"I don't drink coffee". I know this is serious and deliberate but it still makes me laugh sometimes

@Brandon_SoMD 7 ай бұрын

(Mormons are taught not to drink hot drinks - tea and coffee.)

@azurejester 7 ай бұрын

@@Brandon_SoMD ... Yeah. I know. Thanks

@aaronpolichar7936 7 ай бұрын

Thanks for teaching me a new word

@joejiggity6075 7 ай бұрын

Thank you, Dan.

@pablobulldog Ай бұрын

Bam! Mic drop! 🫡

@scented-leafpelargonium3366 7 ай бұрын

The Hebrew word rendered as "men" in English from Hebrew is ANASHIM, which is a male plural word linked to the related root word ANUSH, which means HUMAN. When adjoined to another word it becomes hyphenized, as in Genesis 19:4, where it appears as ANSHEI S'DOM. Having lived in Israel for 10 years, I remember the word ANASHIM very clearly. It was always used to mean PEOPLE, although it is a male plural, but even if all males it still means PEOPLE coming from the ANUSH ("HUMAN") root, which is neither male nor female. The English translators seeing the male plural translate it literally in male as "MEN." However, this is true for all male plurals which always include females, as Hebrew is known as a chauvinistic language, such as with the terms "men of Galilee" to describe those gathered on the Mount of Olives at the Ascension (were women not present even after they followed Him everywhere, including at the foot of the cross and at the tomb when all the men had fled or denied knowing him?), and the crowd in Acts 2 on the Day of Pentecost, which was the pilgrim Feast of Weeks or Shavuot when it was commanded for whole families to come to Jerusalem, just as Yeshua ("Jesus") did with His parents for Passover each year, so females would have been present, yet the English Bibles use the term "men of Jerusalem" to the crowd, so does that mean that it was same-sex festival? Even terms like "sons of God" or "kings and priests" in Messiah include females, but it is described in male terminology, and thus it is throughout Scripture, and so it is in Sodom. Why should it be perceived as "only males" in Sodom, when the term "men" used in all these other contexts is always understood to include both sexes? It is not consistent. On top of this, the destruction of both Sodom AND Gomorrah were slated for destruction in the previous chapter (18), where Abraham pleads with the LORD on behalf of the righteous in the cities, but there are not even enough to save them, which must include females too, unless they are impervious to sin, as this judgement was not based on the incident that happened outside Lot's house, which at any rate did not involve Gomorrah at all, only Sodom. Thus God would have to owe an apology to Gomorrah if it were destroyed for one incident that happened outside Lot's house in Sodom (as they overlook general grave sin). If one reads Genesis 19:4 saying "people" ("humans") instead of "men" (i.e. males only) the passage reads very differently, and implicates the population of the whole city of sin, not just a bunch of homosexual men. Most bigotted theologians willl never accept this, and insist "men" means "men" (in English), despite "men" including females elsewhere, and even if they do insist on it being only men/males, God adds a second word in Hebrew to clarify the intention and truthful nature of the passage, which is the small word AM, which is PEOPLE in SINGULAR form, such as AM ISRAEL ("people of Israel"), and is rendered in the same verse (4) in English as "PEOPLE", as in "PEOPLE FROM EVERY QUARTER" (of the city), so how can it be only men, if the same verse also mentions PEOPLE as a singular unit? Thus ANASHIM in all usage is always "people" (plural, i.e. of individuals) and AM in all usage is always "people" (singular, as with "a people"), and both are used in this verse. Even though the Hebrew text reveals that this was a mixed sex, all-citizen gathering displaying clear desire to commit sexual assault against Lot's angelic visitors as a lust-filled orgy, which is why Lot offers his daughters, which would be a useless offer to a group of male-only interested homosexuals, yet so many Gentile scholars try to apply this to it. It is obviously more comfortable to condemn Sodom and Gomorrah's destruction as being solely for homosexuality, but the etymology and grammar of the original text does not say it. Obviously the cities were condemned by God for all kinds of depravity, such as adultery, fornication, incest, lust, bestiality, eyc., which even if homosexuality and lesbianism were practised, it is clearly not the sole reason for the two cities' destruction, and Jude and elsewhere all cite other things, such as a warning against ungodliness, but not one sin. It is simple grammatical clarity, but if one is prejudiced one will not accept this truth.

@HandofOmega 7 ай бұрын

"Tergiversating"? Is that cromulent?? 😉

@VulcanLogic 7 ай бұрын

I certainly felt embiggened by the discussion.

@jimrob4 7 ай бұрын

OP reminds me of Matcluck, the chicken lawyer on Futurama. Constantly introducing evidence that worsens his own argument, with a twangy southern drawl.

@JopJio 7 ай бұрын

I mean deeds dont matter according to Paul, you only have to have faith that Jesus is "lord" and in the resurrection. So sins also dont matter at all. Todays Christians have no problem's with pre marriage relationships, divorces and many more stuff but have a problem with LGBT. I bet in 100 years this will be accepted too

@mcdonaldsorwhatevers 7 ай бұрын

cant wait for churches to be debating is consuming csam material moral in 125 years