To be fair, God does seem to have the habit of being his own child.

This guy's peppy confidence, can't help make me smile, like a springer spaniel chasing after the truck that is actual scholarship. I assume he's recently come out of an apologetics course where he's been trained to think that he understands scholarship without being trained to think or to understand scholarship.

When I was at chapel Hill, almost two decades ago now, we were reading some of the very texts you were talking about in this video, and that's when I came to the conclusion that Elohim (I'm using romanized words for simplicity here) is a pantheon, with EL at the top of that pantheon and YHWH being second tier if not third tier in that pantheon. It's in the texts and very blatant. It was one of the things that broke me from my dogma and then Dr Nation when I realized the Christian Bible is just another polytheistic religion and people have been lying about it for the last 2,000+ years. It kind of breaks you mentally when you realize you have been lied to your whole life by those you trusted, but the problem is they didn't lie to you because they thought the same way, they were taught the same way that I was when I was younger. So they're just as much a victim as I was, and that's why I couldn't hold on to the anger very long.

Around 6:25 I was distracted by the leviathan monster with seven heads. I guess the Hydra of Lerna of Greek mythology is another incarnation of the same beast. 😊 Fascinating stuff. The Bible in its actual historical context is 100 times more interesting than just reading it as a religious text.

It's frustrating that some can't accept an ancient people had a developing concept of their religion.

Presupposing univocality is super convenient though, since you just have to show something is true once somewhere in the Bible 😅

Thank you Dan for explaining this so clearly.

Thank you for helping to educate me on subjects like this. It’s very helpful.

This was a brutally clinical dismantling of someone nurtured on second-tier pop apologetics. Another excellent video.

Love when he asked why Dan thinks they're appropriating literature originally attributed to Ba'al and then described what a polemic is which requires appropriation in the first place 😂

Dan, I love the work you do. You're so patient and so erudite! Keep up the good work. Have a nice Easter.

Great video and perfect timing I literally just responded to a guy earlier on inspiring philosophy's Yahweh post from a few days a week or two ago or something Had I seen this video first I would've just posted it but I'm just now seeing a video I copied and paste it over there

I don’t see how any of the narratives of the Bible are different from or more valid than any other cosmogonic or esoteric tradition. In Polynesian lore, either Kanaloa or Kāne is the creator of the universe and humanity and all of the other gods who are manifested by elements of nature and cognition. Other traditions from around the world are just as valid.

Paula Frederickson said in one Mythvision interview: "Jews were never monotheist!" That shocks the average person.

I want to hear more examples about how the LXX differs from the Masoretic Text and how that hints at an earlier tradition that was changed.

Dan out here cooking.

When the ignorant gets challenged, they turn hostile and commit to their conforming biases as the authority. You hate to see it.

“Univocality” seems to be the muddy road, that many “creators”prance down. Might I suggest to these creators, that they throw out their bibles and sit at a 🌳 tree on a warm breezy day. You will grasp much more truth without the mental gymnastics, and you will truly hear the voice of your god, if that is your path. (Your only followers will be some worms and a few pigeons but you’re not in it for the followers anyway, are you?)

Killin it!

This is very interesting, and quite clearly laid out. I can understand why the faithful won't accept any of this though. I hope this early stuff makes more of an appearance on data over dogma in the future. The Jesus era stuff is fine, but it's a lot more ubiquitous than diacussion of Isaiah, Jeremiah and other earlier material.

I'm pretty sure I'm as monotheist as it gets and I'm all in with Dan's position.

Fun for the whole family!

Wanted to thank you for the content you provide, was wondering what you thought of putting the Constitution of the United States in the Bible and has anything like this been done before?

It's really shocking that some people believe that a religion can stay exactly the same literally for 2500 years.

It was such an interesting discussion, and I fully enjoyed it. I have a Muslim bias, so what you're saying sounds entirely plausible from the Islamic world view. In a nutshell, the story of humanity is a repetitive one according to the Muslims, and its at its most basic form a story of God sending guidance to humanity and over the generations, the people introduce fictions and falsehoods and then God sends a messenger to call them back to monotheism, they are usually either destroyed or obey and return to the religion given by God and again over generations begin to introduce falsehoods and deviations. What you describe based on textual critique seems entirely plausible but removes the possibility of the book having a basis in reality, at least according to scholarly consensus, I guess that's the objectivity a scholar would aim for. So, on that basis, my bias disagrees. As Muslims, we understand the events happened, but the texts we have derived the bible from have been overcome by falsehoods that can not serve as guidance and often contradicts itself. That is why it appears to say God has a superior or that there exist other gods beside Him. The Qur'an has its own proofs for authenticity that are not reliant upon biblical claims and differ greatly from the biblical narrations. I'm wondering if you have any familiarity with Qur'anic arguments. Do you find similar grounds for rejection as a scholar? Does there exist a uni vocal perspective? Are there layers of narrative overlapping others to show a multiplicity of authors? I'd love to hear your thoughts.

The point about Adonai talking solely about being the "one and only", being just about Israel, would be strengthened if he presented similar texts for other religions in the region.

And my entire life, I thought I was reading the very word of God. Wow......

On one level, this is a fairly high level debate discussing textual annalasis, translations, historical data etc. But on another level it just seems to be a grown, otherwise intelligent adult arguing for the reality of ancient supernatural beings and monsters.

Tangential question on the whole serpent with seven heads/serpent in the sea thing: was that correlation between the versions made because of the seven seas, so the seven heads represent the seas, or was that just a coincidental choice, or is the reason for changing the description of the serpent not really known?

That’s why is Data > Dogma

Look at this dude riding Dan's coattails.

A lot of different scripts seem to be squished together with some rather sloppy literary smoothing.

I feel like the guy was holding his breath throughout the video.

Dan, will you please number your videos here on KZfaq so those of us that only access your work here can also play along?

Big Jon's making claims about the logical relationship between god conceptions and trying to cleanly delineate specific beings as though Amun-Ra and Ra-Horakhty weren't a thing, and like polytheists would never intentionally choose to fuse two gods together.

Hear hoofbeats? Think horses, people. Not zebras. The simpliest explanation is usually the right one. Listen to Dan and his explanation of hoofbeats.

Psalms 89:6 direct translation 6 For who in the heavens Compareth himself to Yahweh? Who Is like to Yahweh among sons of God?

🎵What’s your name? Who’s your daddy?🎵

Thank you.

Unrelated question but I was wondering did Jesus say why have you forsaken me on the cross? If so, why? It makes it seem as if he expected to be saved from the situation all the way up to that point. Love your content and thank you.

This is amazing

Don't beat arpund the bush. I meant the BURNING BUSH. IT COULD BURN U.

@maklelan What is the most persistent issue preventing the proper reading of the text, and why is it the assumption of univocality? 😆

In 1917 we took a little trip...

"It seems to me" is not a good argument.

Dan's confused face at 7:05 😂

Where can one find genesis 14:22 from tge dead sea scrolls?

What about the claim that Israel is not among the 70 nations?

Quick question. What Bible version would be the best to study the book?

I think that if you are going to argue the veracity of something, you actually have to have a deep knowledge of the subject. This other “creator” knows something, but obviously not to the level of a scholar.

Can anyone please say, how to say there is no God but me. (Duerotonomy) in aramaic.(jesus dialect)I heared a jew converted to islam saying allah, in Aramaic version. Please abswer🙏🏻

Wow there is a lot packed into this react.

All this editing, splicing, and insertion of later writings into original texts is suspicious AF.

exactly! Plus if you say Yahweh gave himself his own inheritance you're also acknowledging that there's lots of sons of God that are other gods over other nations so Jesus isn't his only begotten son clearly acknowledging the existence of other gods (so who is the mother of those gods) that line of illogical argumentation just paints themselves in a corner. Plus how come all those other nations speak different languages and don't worship their father and want to kill all their other brothers and sisters ? none of it makes sense when you look at it from the apologists' perspective it doesn't even match their own theology it just suits their rhetorical goals for that particular verse they don't care that it contradicts other parts of their theology ignore that part of it edited to add... If God is all knowing why did he let his sons be the gods of other nations knowing they would be against him knowing they would harm his people.. plus how can God sons who I assume are sinless at the beginning be corrupted to go against their father or you could say that God told those people to worship the other gods his sons so then why would he be mad that they're not worshiping him The entire argument is asinine

YEAH YOU GET ‘IM DAN FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT

Univocality - Theory vs Reality. The Theory; Dan assumes, that univocality is not possible across time, space & authorship, based upon the underlying assumption, there is no God &/or God had nothing to do with the authorship of the OT & NT writings. The Reality; The only thing that can truly disprove univocality is contradiction. If you gather all relevant verses that logicaly pertain to a specific biblical subject and examine them in total, and if the picture that emerges is consistent and without contradiction, then you have, for all practical purposes, univocality. Now all you have to do is explain how this is possible, if you have already assumed it is not possible.

With the idea that you don't give an inheritance to yourself, I recently came across the idea of "antecedens pro pronomine relativo". Wouldn't that make it entirely possible to give an inheritance to yourself?

Around _ correction

The entire argument, on all sides.. falls apart when you just let scripture speak for itself, and it teaches as a WHOLE that the "B'nai Elohim'', children of Elohim (or Sons of God), are 'Adamites', the line descendent from Adam, and ultimately the Israelites. That's why most translations translate Deuteronomy 32 as "According to the children of Israel", because its explaining to the readers who the "sons of Elohim'' are.. Sons of Elohim are always HUMAN and descendants of Adam .. not some race of gods or demi gods or some pantheon or henotheism.. that's all the product of greco-roman minded Hellenism forcing it's world view into the scriptures. It does NOT enter the mind of true Hebrew scholars (namely, the Jews).. most American schooled "Scholars" are devoid of understanding the Scriptures and Hebrew, no matter how much they claim to be experts, they are engrossed in the western pagan mind and see the whole world through that lens, especially the scriptures (Dan is a good example,, claims to be a scholar of Hebrew scriptures, but everything that comes out of his mouth is derived from the greco-roman mindset.. yes he is a scholar, but its a scholar of "the greco worldviews personal interpretation of the hebrew scriptures")

Hear me out: There was an extremely devious, proud, evil angel who tried to raise himself above the Most High God. He got cast down to earth, and soon had that same"competition" mentality with Baal to be "THE" stormgod. It took him 430 years since he met Abram to the time of Moses to choose a name, and he chose yhwh. Then, since he was obviously a creation of the Most High, he came in as a 2nd tier diety much later, and soon he pulled the same stunt he did eons before in heaven, and started the conflated story of being the most high himself. Jesus, however wasn't as ignorant as yhwh wanted him to be and pointed out to the jewish pharisees that their father is the liar, the father of lies, the thief that steals kills and destroys (and through most of the Hebrew bible and the OT, we have proof of hs evil character and his love for war and bloodshed of innocent people). Jesus also called him, based on the fact, the thief that steals, kills and destroys. He remains the ultimate deceiver and destroyer, the father of lies, and has most of the world in his clutches having them only focussed on making them believe he is the most high and their focus should be fearful endeavours relating to escaping hell, at the cost of whatever. He has always fed off pride and fear. This should be evidence that he is at best second tier? He is the killer of love, as fear is his driving force, as we still see very clearly through-out the world. There's nothing original about him apart from his excessive cruelty. All else is stolen from other deities and copycat-ted., or appropriated, while the whole world knew how fake he was.

Hey! Can we have a debate about God?

Tic Tok is a weird place for in-depth academic discussions.

If we are all worshipping God when we should be worshipping YHWH does that mean we’ll all go to hell

Neither Jacob of Abraham placed a temple to El. The cities named is Luz, and its name descibe its god, Asherah, the goddess of the grove. These later additions were an attempt to attach 'Els name to the city. The cult of El is a priesthood that gain authority originally during the period of mesopotamian conquest before the Kassite babylonian period. They place the weakened status of two gods, An and Enlil, (ilu and illil) into a composite regional father god, replacing dagan in most of his duties (Dagans city is well within Babylon at this point). The priesthood was never a temple priesthood. This was the later Jewish scribes trying to insert El into the Deborah's city because there was a popular folk song about Deborah. The priesthood of El was a tabernacle pruesthood that abided in high places. They watched iver trade. Orobably they iriginally watched iver trade for Sumer III and Babylon, but that fell apart during the Anarna period and was locally instanced during the Israelite period. 'El was not and never was a temple god for the expressed reason that 'El was needed to watch over the wilderness as this occupation was to the benefit of traders, herders and consumers alike. El was a god of Mount Hermon, another mountain in north central syria, and other sites. The priesthood was mobile, they could disasseble their tabernacle and move at a moments notice (which probably pissed the pharoahs off). They could be positioned at multiple sites.

Hey can you do a respond to Putin

Did you commit a "No true Scotsman" fallacy at the very end?

Hey Dan, do you believe that Jesus Christ rose from the dead?

scholar? 😆 you mean false preacher

Dan, are secular scholars aware that if those scrolls are written by a Gentile who does believe in God, or an apostate Jew, or a Jew who betrays other Jews or their property to powerful oppressors, or a Canaanite servant, or a Jewish woman or minor, they are not kosher and must be entombed?

Sigh. These are all just titles for the same God. with the exception of elohim but even that is a title as well.

God's father has no name. Source. "Father of all." Religion is a cool story/myth... thats about all it is. No offense, but I follow only the "religion" of truth. :)

None of that justifies the use of woke pronouns to refer to YHWH in a biblical context. Dan has not thought that through.