To be fair, God does seem to have the habit of being his own child.
@KasperKatje5 ай бұрын
I think it's the other way around: upgrading a person or god to his father. 😉
@peraspera9345 ай бұрын
Lol, true. Trinitarians have "an answer" for that. 😅 It doesn't matter if it's a paradox. It's in the Bible. Therefore, it must be accepted as univocally true. It's a mystery so don't think too hard about it.
@archivist175 ай бұрын
@@KasperKatje iow, he has 'daddy issues' 😂
@amosmgz5 ай бұрын
YES. say it louder for the Dans in the back
@cobuck40075 ай бұрын
😂
@maninalift5 ай бұрын
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.
@XRamenmaX5 ай бұрын
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.
@CarlosAlvarado045 ай бұрын
You are presupposing that they hide stuff from you. They don’t. They don’t even know these conclusions either. Serious biblical scholars were around long time ago, relegated only to dense academic backgrounds. Religion is based on this but is not the same thing.
@Natsar-Torah5 ай бұрын
Christianity is NOT a religion based on the bible.. Its based on Greco-Roman philosophy turned theology. Its a completely fabricated religion invented by the Romans in an attempt to destroy the Jewish influences in the world. The one religion that is based on scripture would be Orthodox Judaism . and it is thoroughly Monotheistic because that is what the bible teaches,, these so called 'scholars' think the bible teaches a pantheon or henotheism and scrape to find archaeology and support in the hebrew texts.. but the problem is they are doing all their scholarship through the LENS of hellenist worldviews and greco-roman christianity in the first place . such a lens is completely distorting their conclusions of Hebrew texts. and it's come out now and being accepted as "scholarship" .. um no, its not Hebrew scholarship and its off based. The Jews have been doing Hebrew scholarship for 3000 years, thats where the real answers lay
@pansepot14905 ай бұрын
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.
@MarcosElMalo25 ай бұрын
Not me. I got distracted by the idea that the Thundercats represent a pantheon of gods, lead by Lion-El. Thundercats, Ho!!
@Matt_The_Hugenot5 ай бұрын
It's frustrating that some can't accept an ancient people had a developing concept of their religion.
@thedarknessthatcomesbefore42794 ай бұрын
Certainly is.
@louisnemzer68015 ай бұрын
Presupposing univocality is super convenient though, since you just have to show something is true once somewhere in the Bible 😅
@jericosha28425 ай бұрын
This is actually a very intelligent observation. I remember when I was an evangelical I would search for a single verse that seemed to say what I felt was right or what confirmed my current belief. If I found a few, even better.
@peraspera9345 ай бұрын
Dang, you're right. That happens all the time in churches.
@CharlesPayet5 ай бұрын
Yep, that’s the whole point of proof-texting.
@icollectstories57025 ай бұрын
But that makes any contradiction falsify the whole shebang. Univocality is brittle.
@annemariededekind62715 ай бұрын
Thank you Dan for explaining this so clearly.
@CanadianAnglican5 ай бұрын
Thank you for helping to educate me on subjects like this. It’s very helpful.
@kgilmore5 ай бұрын
This was a brutally clinical dismantling of someone nurtured on second-tier pop apologetics. Another excellent video.
@wannabe_scholar825 ай бұрын
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 😂
@michaelmcguire79624 ай бұрын
Dan, I love the work you do. You're so patient and so erudite! Keep up the good work. Have a nice Easter.
@CommonSense_Skeptic5 ай бұрын
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
@rkn28005 ай бұрын
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.
@munbruk5 ай бұрын
Paula Frederickson said in one Mythvision interview: "Jews were never monotheist!" That shocks the average person.
@jeffmacdonald98635 ай бұрын
Would certainly shock me. And most Jews, I think. I think I know what's meant, but Jews certainly became monotheist at some point. The question is when.
@InMyBunker5 ай бұрын
Are you talking about the Jews today or the Jews of the Bible?
@munbruk5 ай бұрын
@@jeffmacdonald9863 Thanks to Islam, Christianity and Judaism fixed many things.
@michaelmacias85 ай бұрын
Jews and christians are but the patriarchs of the bible were not.
@jeffmacdonald98635 ай бұрын
@@InMyBunkerEven with "Jews of the Bible", the question is when. Certainly not in the earliest historical parts, but after the Exile?
@sadib1004 ай бұрын
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.
@jnobi775 ай бұрын
Dan out here cooking.
@jnobi775 ай бұрын
When the ignorant gets challenged, they turn hostile and commit to their conforming biases as the authority. You hate to see it.
@RodriguezCarlitos-hd7ti5 ай бұрын
“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?)
@theonetruetim5 ай бұрын
Killin it!
@integrationalpolytheism5 ай бұрын
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.
@randybaker60425 ай бұрын
I'm pretty sure I'm as monotheist as it gets and I'm all in with Dan's position.
@marknieuweboer80995 ай бұрын
There is no reason not to - Biblical scholarship is not about arguing against theism. Much of the consensus talked about consists of practising christians who want to understand those old texts better.
@randybaker60425 ай бұрын
@@marknieuweboer8099- one of the main points behind this particular video is that the creator on the other page is coming from a predisposed, dogmatic position. There is a big difference between wanting to understand those old texts better from a secular view and that of a practicing anything. That obviously doesn't mean Christians or anyone else can't approach things from a secular view, but in order to do so properly, predisposed positions have to be left outside the door. When it comes to understanding old texts better, Bible scholarship can be quite dogmatic. What I'm saying has nothing to do with arguing against theism. Monotheism versus polytheism is at play here.
@alanb88845 ай бұрын
Fun for the whole family!
@Bubblewench425 ай бұрын
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?
@furkancacan73754 күн бұрын
It's really shocking that some people believe that a religion can stay exactly the same literally for 2500 years.
@rawhaanhenry83267 күн бұрын
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.
@schen79134 ай бұрын
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.
@sunshowerpainting15 ай бұрын
And my entire life, I thought I was reading the very word of God. Wow......
@djfrank6825 күн бұрын
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.
@KedarOthort5 ай бұрын
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?
@MarcosElMalo25 ай бұрын
Interesting question! My ignorant speculation is no because there were three known seas to the people of that area in that era. The Med, the Red, and the Dead. But it’s possible that the had heard of other seas, so 🤷🏻♀️.
@KedarOthort5 ай бұрын
@@MarcosElMalo2 That's my gut feeling as well but they may have had stories of other seas, even if what they called the seven seas at the time isn't what we think of them nowadays.
@KedarOthort5 ай бұрын
@@MarcosElMalo2 And I figured I'd ask an expert first before I go too deep into a Google rabbit hole since a Google search isn't always conclusive when there's an expert who might be willing to answer. Lol
@MarcosElMalo25 ай бұрын
@@KedarOthort Good luck on your search/trip down a rabbit hole. I can also see your argument. It could be mythic seas + the known ones. Thanks again for the interesting non-sequitur. If you’re going to go off topic, make it interesting! 😂
@CarlosAlvarado045 ай бұрын
That’s why is Data > Dogma
@FernLovebond5 ай бұрын
Look at this dude riding Dan's coattails.
@scottmaddow78795 ай бұрын
A lot of different scripts seem to be squished together with some rather sloppy literary smoothing.
@divinity9965 ай бұрын
I feel like the guy was holding his breath throughout the video.
@boboak91685 ай бұрын
Dan, will you please number your videos here on KZfaq so those of us that only access your work here can also play along?
@SamEfDee4 ай бұрын
Yeah, would be nice to jot have to got to tiktok to find referenced videos.
@Zahaqiel5 ай бұрын
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.
@lde-m86885 ай бұрын
Hear hoofbeats? Think horses, people. Not zebras. The simpliest explanation is usually the right one. Listen to Dan and his explanation of hoofbeats.
@williamwoodall84015 ай бұрын
Psalms 89:6 direct translation 6 For who in the heavens Compareth himself to Yahweh? Who Is like to Yahweh among sons of God?
@williamwoodall84015 ай бұрын
@@Texasmade74 I’m not denoting anything I’m quoting the Bible the fact is until the dueteronomist reforms Yahweh was the son of El most high, also saying God can’t have a son is a funny view point to have
@SpaceLordof755 ай бұрын
🎵What’s your name? Who’s your daddy?🎵
@peraspera9345 ай бұрын
Someone should write a song about the trinity in the style of "I'm My Own Grandpa" by Ray Stevens.
@muchacho565 ай бұрын
I reeeeally wanna knooow-ho!
@welcometonebalia5 ай бұрын
Thank you.
@gilbertalvarado51015 ай бұрын
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.
@tezzerii5 ай бұрын
@gilbertalvarado5101 Here's a possible answer - no, he didn't expect to be saved, but just then the Father had to withdraw his influence / companionship / spirit / whatever, leaving Jesus completely on his own for that moment to go it alone. Maybe a shock even to him.
@Agryphos5 ай бұрын
The gospel authors seem to draw a decent amount on Psalm 22 in their depiction of Jesus, and very obviously so with 22:1 Further, Mark has the mystery of the Messiah as a major theme and the end of Jesus in Mark's gospel in particular is very abrupt and unexpected for what you might expect for the Messiah (like the other gospel writers have a much more active Jesus going to trial and so on), so that might also feature
@gilbertalvarado51015 ай бұрын
Appreciate the input.
@KasperKatje5 ай бұрын
@@gilbertalvarado5101it's just another attempt to link Jesus to the Torah/Old Testament. In this case Psalm 22:1. Only 2 gospels mention it and 1 of the 2 because it copies the gospel of Mark. (According to the other 2 gospels Jesus had other last words) It just like the 40 days between the claimed resurrection and ascension which is used to link Jesus to the Jewish 40 days/40 years myth (like they did with Jesus being in the desert for 40 days to match the 40 days in the desert by Moses).
@samuelsherman4075Ай бұрын
This is amazing
@bevinfernandes38755 ай бұрын
Don't beat arpund the bush. I meant the BURNING BUSH. IT COULD BURN U.
@blootooth005 ай бұрын
What Bush? This bush? You don't want me to beat around thi- OW
@bevinfernandes38755 ай бұрын
The burning bush in the bible Dan can explain to u.
@bevinfernandes38755 ай бұрын
Of probably the Bush of Baal
@strangelaw63845 ай бұрын
@@blootooth00 me: ow ow ow bush: hehe am Gawd
@blootooth005 ай бұрын
@@strangelaw6384 oh yeah, I know, I was just continuing the joke
@wt96885 ай бұрын
@maklelan What is the most persistent issue preventing the proper reading of the text, and why is it the assumption of univocality? 😆
@aaronc.81925 ай бұрын
In 1917 we took a little trip...
@emptyhand7775 ай бұрын
"It seems to me" is not a good argument.
@thalasyus5 ай бұрын
Dan's confused face at 7:05 😂
@jmcglory125 ай бұрын
Where can one find genesis 14:22 from tge dead sea scrolls?
@zelenisok5 ай бұрын
What about the claim that Israel is not among the 70 nations?
@axiom92445 ай бұрын
Quick question. What Bible version would be the best to study the book?
@KasperKatje5 ай бұрын
I believe most scholars use NRSVUE
@FernLovebond5 ай бұрын
Dan gets asked this all the time, and if you search his videos for "bible translation" you'll find many results, but particularly this one: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/ibZonNijl5bdcqs.html ~ In that he does indeed recommend most ppl check out the NRSV, specifically the Oxford Annotated 5th Edition, IIRC. But he also gets into some interesting options for ppl, depending on what exactly you're wanting to read for.
@axiom92445 ай бұрын
@@FernLovebond Thanks
@victorguzman2302Ай бұрын
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.
@Dewdrops61625 ай бұрын
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🙏🏻
@KasperKatje5 ай бұрын
It says "no gods besides me" in most translations and in the Torah they used "Elohim" in that verse. For "Me/I" they used אֲנִי, Ani, but I don't know how they pronounced that. But there are clues Allah comes from Eloah (which comes from El).
@Dewdrops61625 ай бұрын
Brother he reads the transilation of targum onkelos
@FentonMulley-cz8pv5 ай бұрын
Wow there is a lot packed into this react.
@benjamintrevino3254 ай бұрын
All this editing, splicing, and insertion of later writings into original texts is suspicious AF.
@CommonSense_Skeptic3 ай бұрын
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
@spinnwebe_5 ай бұрын
YEAH YOU GET ‘IM DAN FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT
@glenwillson50735 ай бұрын
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.
@cranzag5 ай бұрын
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?
@bevinfernandes38755 ай бұрын
Around _ correction
@Natsar-Torah5 ай бұрын
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")
@chrisbornman54605 ай бұрын
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.
@clinchleatherwood10125 ай бұрын
I wish you could have added bong rip noises during this.
@blootooth005 ай бұрын
I mean, I don't believe this actually happened and that these are real deities, but I think it makes a hell of a lot more sense than Christian doctrine, which involves an all powerful, all knowing God creating the worst afterlife system ever, then after a few hundred years changing his mind, and sending himself to die for himself, to appease his own anger that he feels towards the world that he himself created. Meanwhile this Gnostic interpretation functions a lot closer to coherent lore, like that of Sauron's rise to power in the Silmarilion. I might not have put christianity down as readily (not that it was an easy process) if I had been raised with this lore.
@MarcosElMalo25 ай бұрын
@@blootooth00One of the lessons I’ve learned is that it’s a mistake to expect coherence from a collection of texts written, edited, translated, and assembled by many people with different agendas, often using different sources. If coherence is what you sought, you weren’t going to find it in the Bible (as I imagine you already know). I hope you found what you needed as you searched elsewhere.
@blootooth005 ай бұрын
@MarcosElMalo2 Yes, I find it through secular philosophical thought and science. (: Philosophy and science are a lot more objective than the "objective morality" of Yahweh and Divine Command Theory haha
@MarcosElMalo25 ай бұрын
@@blootooth00It sounds like you’ve found tranquillity. That sounds better than univocal coherence.
@Andrei1983N5 ай бұрын
Hey! Can we have a debate about God?
@danjohnston90375 ай бұрын
no
@bskec21775 ай бұрын
Tic Tok is a weird place for in-depth academic discussions.
@basilkearsley26575 ай бұрын
If we are all worshipping God when we should be worshipping YHWH does that mean we’ll all go to hell
@ArchieM5 ай бұрын
This God that the majority within these believes are worshipping IS already Jehova. If anything - El would be the one to get mad. And maybe even more mad, that neither He nor His children created a hell to throw us into.
@MarcosElMalo25 ай бұрын
@@ArchieMIt hadn’t been invented yet. We call God The Creator, not The Inventor.
@ArchieM5 ай бұрын
@@MarcosElMalo2 I'm not sure which timeline you're referencing, or which "It" you mean.
@squiddwizzard88505 ай бұрын
@@ArchieM Jehovah is a false name. It's based on a misunderstanding and conflation of other names.
@MarcosElMalo25 ай бұрын
@@ArchieM Hell is it. Hell hadn’t been invented at the time of the substitution. Before then it was called H E double hockey sticks.
@Darisiabgal75735 ай бұрын
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.
@Kostaki3125 ай бұрын
Can you provide the sources to this? Very curious to read more about it.
@youngmarcio5 ай бұрын
Hey can you do a respond to Putin
@Leoji675 ай бұрын
Did you commit a "No true Scotsman" fallacy at the very end?
@bradleythornock86275 ай бұрын
No, because Dan is not arbitrarily trying to exclude this other creator by adding a new premise to a definition of openness because Dan doesn’t like him.
@Leoji675 ай бұрын
@bradleythornock8627 I know! Just joking a bit!
@clinchleatherwood10125 ай бұрын
Arbitrarily.
@MarcosElMalo25 ай бұрын
@@Leoji67Joke received. It’s worth pointing out that Dan often uses the term “Scholarly Consensus” because he is not going to claim dogmatically that his interpretation is the correct one. He’s just pointing out where errors lead to unsupported conclusions used to buttress someone’s dogma (i.e. apologetics).
@DaveSorenson5 ай бұрын
Hey Dan, do you believe that Jesus Christ rose from the dead?
@adbenkunkus5 ай бұрын
No, he is not brain dead. Next question!
@tchristianphoto5 ай бұрын
This is about biblical study, not theology.
@tva4755 ай бұрын
scholar? 😆 you mean false preacher
@Michael-le5ph4 ай бұрын
If you believe every single word of the Bible is GOD breathed. then any biblical scholar from anywhere in the world is a false teacher. in fact, you will have to codemn more than half of all christians today as false teachers. If you are an evangelical, this is why they mostly don't want their ministers to have any education unless it's from one of their approved schools that make nothing but clones that preach their particular theology.
@hrvatskinoahid10485 ай бұрын
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?
@squiddwizzard88505 ай бұрын
That's dogma, not academia.
@hrvatskinoahid10485 ай бұрын
@@squiddwizzard8850 That's standard Judaism. The guys who wrote the Jewish Bible.
@LM-jz9vh5 ай бұрын
@@squiddwizzard8850 You're wasting your time with this idiot. He's beyond help.
@Noneya55555 ай бұрын
That's what they said, dogma. 🤣
@michaelmacias85 ай бұрын
Sigh. These are all just titles for the same God. with the exception of elohim but even that is a title as well.
@KasperKatje5 ай бұрын
Nope. Just study the history and evolution of religion.
@michaelmacias85 ай бұрын
@@KasperKatje I have and it’s still the same “God” that’s not to suggest that the other gods don’t exist. But in the context of the Bible most of these names are just titles for the same God.
@Michael-le5ph4 ай бұрын
@@michaelmacias8 Actually it's not. I would like the proof and evidence that these are all titles for the same God.
@michaelmacias84 ай бұрын
@@Michael-le5ph I would like the proof that they’re not.
@Michael-le5ph4 ай бұрын
@@michaelmacias8 ok. Not arguing with you since you made an assertion and won’t back it up. Think what you want.
@bobbrownintruth5 ай бұрын
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. :)
@MasterBlek5 ай бұрын
Truth has no religion. Truth is followed by evidence. Religion is nothing more but a threat to humanity.
@BobSmith-lb9nc5 ай бұрын
None of that justifies the use of woke pronouns to refer to YHWH in a biblical context. Dan has not thought that through.
@MarcosElMalo25 ай бұрын
Is this a litmus test?
@BobSmith-lb9nc5 ай бұрын
@@MarcosElMalo2 What color does the litmus paper turn?
@DoloresLehmann5 ай бұрын
What woke pronouns? They? They was used to refer to a singular person of unknown gender long before wokeness was even a thing.
@TheFranchiseCA5 ай бұрын
@@DoloresLehmannSince the 1300s, at least. Sometimes for people of known gender for at least 200 years.
@squiddwizzard88505 ай бұрын
The use of singular they has been around for hundreds of years. Dan has been using the for God as long as I can remember.