Part 2 - Did Chemosh really defeat YHWH?

Рет қаралды 6,575

Dan McClellan

6 ай бұрын

Пікірлер: 104

@ThatsNotMyWife 6 ай бұрын

Apologists have such a hard time letting the bible speak for itself.

@HandofOmega 6 ай бұрын

I explained this to a friend as How our modern sports teams use mascots! Just imagine if, when one team beat another, people actually thought that a giant invisible Cowboy really defeated a giant invisible Lion...😮

@rainbowkrampus 6 ай бұрын

I dunno, I've seen some pretty frenzied sports fans. I wouldn't put such beliefs past them.

@derekschmidt5705 5 ай бұрын

The wedge of cheese representing Green Bay has entered the chat.

@karmachameleon326 6 ай бұрын

A side effect of his argument, is that he’s admitting that there are other gods. They are “weak”, apparently, but real. That’s an interesting point, considering that the current philosophy - as far as I’m aware - is that there has only ever been one god. I’d be curious to know how he aligns those two perspectives.

@mustachemac5229 6 ай бұрын

I agree, but most fundamental Christian just refer to these other gods and demons or something along that nature. I think you mean theology and not philosophy.

@Guishan_Lingyou 6 ай бұрын

Good point.

@tim57243 18 күн бұрын

You might be interested to watch Dan's video with title "There is no monotheism in the Bible".

@karmachameleon326 18 күн бұрын

@@tim57243 Yup, I’ve seen it. My comment was more about the apologist’s tacit admission that there are multiple deities represented in the Bible. I don’t know if he realized that was the case, since “one god” is a pretty hard line in the sand for Christian apologists.

@tsalVlog 6 ай бұрын

He destroyed his own argument when he resorted to personal attacks. Granted, you’d already put his arguments on life support with your own reasoning.

@timandmonica 6 ай бұрын

Don't want to beleaguer this point too much, yet I have to ask: What part of the video did he attack Dan personally and not his work? I didn't catch it.

@SimonDaumMusic 6 ай бұрын

@@timandmonica I would not call it personal attack, but in his videos on his channel he talks a lot about Dan as a person, and also spends minutes on his own education and how he knows what he is talking about, instead of simply adressing the issue... and this is where I appreaciate Dans work, he cares about the facst, not so much about the person bringing up a claim...

@FernLovebond 6 ай бұрын

@@timandmonica I'd say one could say "personal attacks" include the flippant dismissal of Dan's assessments as if Dan is somehow being duplicitous or ignorant about the debate the original creator (OC) claims (beginning about 3:27), and perhaps the condescending "Dan's argument is _so weak_ that I'm gonna _grant_ him" and "your argument _still sucks"_ snark (about 4:16).

@robertbrowne7880 6 ай бұрын

I'm learning as much about apologetics as I am biblical history. Thanks Dan.

@Sportliveonline 6 ай бұрын

what did you find

@Garuda_E 6 ай бұрын

If I was convinced my god was all-powerful or maximally powerful, and I was resolved to force all evidence to fit this immutable conclusion (rather than let conclusions be drawn from evidence), then I would probably be daydreaming up what if scenarios just like the creator Dan is responding to.

@hrvatskinoahid1048 6 ай бұрын

Rashi explains Israel's iniquities were remembered, that they too worship pagan deities and are not worthy of miracles. Most Jewish children know this explanation.

@hrvatskinoahid1048 6 ай бұрын

Nah. Israel not being worthy of Hashem's miracles says nothing about the power of Hashem. @@MrMortal_Ra

@tesladrew2608 6 ай бұрын

@@hrvatskinoahid1048why would he go back in his word in such a small timeframe? Why would you trust anyone that goes back in their word?

@hrvatskinoahid1048 6 ай бұрын

@@MrMortal_Ra Permanent commandments can only be derived from the Pentateuch, as Deuteronomy 13:1 states: "Everything I command you that you shall be careful to do it. You shall neither add to it, nor subtract from it." It may be that a prophet will be sent by God to instruct certain people to do something which in that situation is neither commanded nor forbidden by Torah Law, for example: "Go out to war." However, this does not have the force of an eternal command.

@hrvatskinoahid1048 6 ай бұрын

@@MrMortal_Ra There is no commandment in the Pentateuch to destroy Moab.

@xaayer 6 ай бұрын

Boy that guy's gonna freak out when he reads Judges 1:19

@jackcimino8822 6 ай бұрын

Probably not. I heard apologists say that the verse makes more sense in Hebrew. Because Judah is actually the topic of the sentence, it should be Judah who wasn't able to defeat those with iron chariots. Doesn't make it any better though.

@xaayer 6 ай бұрын

@@jackcimino8822 it really doesn't because either way YHWH can stand up to iron chariots

@johnmelson7241 6 ай бұрын

You are so patient with these people. I would have lost it by now.

@danielkover7157 5 ай бұрын

Something I've learned about theologians and apologists is that context is important to them as long as it's useful to them. They love to remind people of context, until the context no longer supports their view.

@flowingafterglow629 6 ай бұрын

"If we assume God is good, then I can invent ways to interpret this passage to be consistent with God being good" That's bible interpretation 101

@erinbyrd5181 6 ай бұрын

I’ve noticed a trend in these videos. The apologists are always condescending. Every word they say is just full of holier-than-thou hubris. Dan speaks matter-of-factly and not down to the audience.

@lucasguimaraes8340 6 ай бұрын

Man, i think that not even in the wildest dreams of those bronze age goat herders they could imagine that almost three thousand years after, people would discuss the gibberish that they wrote.

@rainbowkrampus 6 ай бұрын

Let alone do so in defense of another religion.

@alanb8884 6 ай бұрын

@@rainbowkrampus Zing!

@hrvatskinoahid1048 6 ай бұрын

You must be unaware of Exodus 19:9: "Behold, I am coming to you in the thickness of the cloud, in order that the people hear when I speak to you, and they will also believe in you forever."

@ancientfiction5244 6 ай бұрын

@@hrvatskinoahid1048 Quoting Hebrew fiction doesn't help you, champ.

@tussk. 6 ай бұрын

"I'm not inventing scenarios to make the text fit my beliefs. Now, if we imagine that God did this......"

@tompflug5726 6 ай бұрын

I wish you had gone into the weeds a bit more about the Hebrew syntax there. I respect you as an expert on this stuff, but I do like it when I can *try* to follow along. I appreciate that might have bloated the video a bit, but hey, different strokes. Otherwise, great video, thank you!

@Gaming_God990 6 ай бұрын

Love ur work dan 😂❤

@billneo 6 ай бұрын

This Inphilosophersgarb doesn’t realize how outmatched he is. His sources are other apologists while Dan has the training and knowledge to read, understand and interpret the most reliable original texts himself.

@poundcakeboi3104 6 ай бұрын

Never thought I’d see something of academic significance come out of Macon, GA. That’s more impressive to me than the mental gymnastics of the apologist Dan is deconstructing.

@Goodbrod 6 ай бұрын

My goodness, he's very sure of himself.

@Tmanaz480 6 ай бұрын

Apologists have the same mental flaw as conspiracy theorists. Their standard is possibility, not plausibility or probability.

@duncansonoryan 6 ай бұрын

What an unpleasant person.

@Jasn_Chvz 6 ай бұрын

Bro wasn’t ready

@Cornelius135 6 ай бұрын

I get confused sometimes when we insist that the Bible isn’t univocal, and thus we shouldn’t use other scriptures to interpret a passage, but other times we say the Hebrew Scriptures use certain words/conventions/themes that we should use to interpret a passage.

@rainbowkrampus 6 ай бұрын

As a hypothetical, if a tendency arises in a culture to connote possession by appending nouns with " 's " we would not view this as an issue of assuming univocality. This would be a language development which exists independent of the text in question. If you find multiple usages of " 's " all connoting the same intention across periods before and after the text you are examining, it's just a language convention and you should expect to find it in all appropriate scenarios. Assuming univocality would be someone taking something from your comment as an indication that you agree with another commenter merely for being comments in the same comment section. Even if you were both discussing being confused, it would not mean that you are confused about the same thing or that you are both confused in the same way.

@Cornelius135 6 ай бұрын

@@rainbowkrampus dang, the comment section univocally is a solid analogy. I haven’t thought about it in that way. Mmmm I’ll have to chew on that some more, but I think it works really well. Thanks!

@alanb8884 6 ай бұрын

Using other passages for how the Grammar works, words are used, defined and understood, I think is the intention.

@txikitofandango 6 ай бұрын

I don't know why people need God to be omnipotent so badly. Both Old and New Testaments are littered with God failing to account for himself, and this fact gives me huge relief

@kennethgraves9662 6 ай бұрын

That kid goes on and on, and on yet again, ad infitum.

@JayWest14 6 ай бұрын

Nice work Dan!! Whether he accepts it or not, he got cooked!! Cook Dan, cook!!

@sammysamlovescats 6 ай бұрын

That argument at the 4 minute mark: Ooooo big stretch

@billneo 6 ай бұрын

Dan, as described in this video "Adonai, [is] the god of Israel". Here and in many other discussions of the Old Testament, God is specifically the god of the Israelites and is indifferent or hostile to other nations. But the Christian God today is the supreme being of all humanity. My question is when, where and how did this transition occur? Is this truly the same God? Is it ever specifically addressed in scripture?

@emilyly 6 ай бұрын

There are really some confusing contradictions in the Bible. Yeah why would the God be mad if the Moabite king sacrificed his heir? Did this God not know that this would happen? And why would he be angry with the Israelites? It was he who asked them to cut the trees and destroy the Moabite cities. Now the Moabite king was cornered in a dead end and had to resort to religious human sacrifice and God blamed the Israelites for causing this? And also in Leviticus 18, the Israelite God said one could not marry a woman and her sister together in case that they would be love enemies. The God said that was one of the reasons why he wiped out those foreign tribes because they practised this. What about Leah and Rachel?? Were they not sisters? 8 of the 12 tribes are their descendants.

@stephenlitten1789 6 ай бұрын

Who ever said YHWH was consistent?

@emilyly 6 ай бұрын

@@stephenlitten1789 Christians I guess, same yesterday, today and forever stuff like that? But why would the Israelite God be mad at the Moabite king for sacrificing his heir son? Because the Israelite God cared about innocent children even of a different tribe all of a sudden after he had killed so many humans, young and mature? The Israelite God does fluctuate a lot.

@stephenlitten1789 6 ай бұрын

@@emilyly Nah. The Hebrew god was pissed because the Hebrews didn't have a crown prince present to match the bid.

@scienceexplains302 6 ай бұрын

The impotence of foreign gods idea probably didn’t pop up until the Babylonian Captivity. 2 Kings was written before that, and, even if I have the sequence wrong, as we shan’t assume univocality, thus 2 Kings would not necessarily be bound to the weak-foreign-gods concept

@angreehulk 6 ай бұрын

🤘

@adamkotter6174 5 ай бұрын

I don't understand why the original creator didn't just say, "Maybe there's something the Israelites did wrong that wasn't in the text." It would be weird for some major sin to not be mentioned in the text, but it's definitely a possibility. As long as you don't assume that anything not in the Bible didn't happen, you could always just say, "Maybe there's more that didn't get recorded or that was somehow lost."

@flowingafterglow629 6 ай бұрын

I like the way you generously call these people "biblical scholars." I prefer MrDeity's approach of calling them "Excusists" (not even apologists)

@CB66941 6 ай бұрын

The apologist's reasoning really started to sound like an elaborate chain of events to a certain consequence when he stated that Israel's warfare antics lead to a sacrifice which then lead to a wrath, all orchestrated under a single entity. Even though a plain reading of the text does not suggest that at all. You must really grasp at straws to craft that elaboration rather than see it as a story that shows the enemy reacting effectively against the Israelite armies after the armies' deity stated explicitly to his prophet that Moab would be defeated

@BabyHoolighan 6 ай бұрын

What a delightful exchange of ideas. In my opinion, Dr. Dan prevailed with reasonable scholarship logic reducing the cloud of probability to the facts on the ground. Respect to both men.

@victordelarosa4599 6 ай бұрын

This is crazy....It is so clear that the text reads as YHWH lost this battle. Then the work of the apologist is to deny it, it can't mean that; so he twists himself as a pretzel , starting from his conclusion.

@kydoko 6 ай бұрын

@maklelan I find your arguments most reasonable but I’m confused why the author here didn’t chose to make up a more familiar excuse as to why the Israelites were defeated such as some wrongdoing on the part of Israel. I’m sure this dives into the realm of speculation but are there any scholarly ideas here? Perhaps it was not politically safe to blame the Israelite leadership in this case? Or was it really ok for YHWH to be potentially weak outside of his land even though that’s not something we see elsewhere?

@heathenwizard 6 ай бұрын

I’m guessing the argument is that the author of the text simply recognized the existence of other gods like Qemosh, and that Qemosh of Moab could, would, and did overcome Israel’s god Yahweh with serious tribute given on home soil - and tried to downplay it somewhat, because said author was simply an Israelite still smarting from the loss. That’s the plain reading of the text Dr. McClellan makes, as I understand it at least!

@jamesjarvis3486 6 ай бұрын

I don't care if it rains or freezes 'cause I've got my exegesis on the dashboard of my truck.

@theGentlemanCaller73 6 ай бұрын

I'm glad we spend so much time arguing about myths.

@HandofOmega 6 ай бұрын

IKR? Now if you'll excuse me, I've got a "JLA vs Avengers" debate to win!😉

@chameleonx9253 6 ай бұрын

My friend, you've just described American politics since 2016.

@peanutmurgler 6 ай бұрын

@@HandofOmegasUpERmAn sOLoS (he’s my guy tho)

@rainbowkrampus 6 ай бұрын

Alright, now I know this dude is off his rocker. Chemosh? Asking for something from that sniveling nerd Bible god? Absurdity. Foolishness. When Chemosh wants something, he takes it.

@paulcleary8088 6 ай бұрын

Why would an all-powerful God need other Gods to exist? Unless, of course, he was not all-powerful and was simply one of the many other Gods.

@azurejester1520 6 ай бұрын

🤙

@willieverusethis 6 ай бұрын

It seems odd that anyone would care so much about this if they believed in one god. Do these apologists believe in the divine nature of other gods, and believe that the events in the Old Testament are actually the result of these gods defending those who sacrifice to them? They have to, to make such arguments.

@christasimon9716 6 ай бұрын

At least they're in agreement that the Bible is _not_ monotheistic.

@ianlockett 6 ай бұрын

Honestly the amount of time wasted because some can’t let go of biblical literalism is mind boggling.

@Ejaezy 6 ай бұрын

I don't see why it would be weird if god is angry at someone for doing something he told them to do. Didn't he do that with Balaam in Numbers 22?

@Sportliveonline 6 ай бұрын

first you have to believe the written narrative is true in the first place

@hrvatskinoahid1048 6 ай бұрын

Even though it is stated (Deut. 20:19): “You shall not destroy its trees,” here He permitted it, for this is a contemptible and insignificant nation before Him. And so Scripture states (Deut. 23:7): “You shall not seek their welfare and their good.” These are the good trees that are among them.

@hrvatskinoahid1048 6 ай бұрын

@@MrMortal_Ra I don't know where you saw that written or implied in my comment.

@JosephNobles 6 ай бұрын

In the first part of the response, Dan shows the destruction of trees law is only for nations within the land of Israel during the conquest of the promised land. The law doesn't apply outside the boundaries of Israel.

@hrvatskinoahid1048 6 ай бұрын

@@JosephNobles Biblical Israel is from the Nile to the Euphrates.

@JosephNobles 6 ай бұрын

@@hrvatskinoahid1048 Oh, my. No king of Israel or Judah has ever ruled all the territory between the Nile and the Euphrates.

@hrvatskinoahid1048 6 ай бұрын

@@JosephNobles The Messiah will liberate the entire Biblical land of Israel from the Nile to the Euphrates. A major reason why Jews believe Jesus ain't him.

@Noneya5555 6 ай бұрын

Really sad and disturbing when Christian apologistsattempt to retrofit ancient texts with contemporary religious norms and values. Also pathetic is when obviously uninformed amateurs feel totally comfortable and justified with arguing biblical texts and meanings with credentialed scholars. Smh...

@johnboden8430 5 ай бұрын

Did Chemosh really defeat YHWH? Who cares?

@kyrroti9921 6 ай бұрын

All of this feels backwards. Like you start with the conclusion and justify it.

@hrvatskinoahid1048 6 ай бұрын

It is permissible for a Gentile to read the twenty-four books of the Hebrew Bible, even with traditional explanations of the simple meaning (like the explanations by Rashi), in order to correctly understand the verses.

@hrvatskinoahid1048 6 ай бұрын

Tractate Sanhedrin 59a and Maimonides, Laws of Kings 10:9 rule that it is forbidden for Gentiles to delve into the rest of the Torah that is not about the Noahide Code. @@MrMortal_Ra

@Scupple 6 ай бұрын

Permissible?

@hrvatskinoahid1048 6 ай бұрын

@@MrMortal_Ra No, I am a Gentile telling you the Torah belongs to the Jews.

@hrvatskinoahid1048 6 ай бұрын

@@MrMortal_Ra Well, my name states I am a Croatian Noahide. The Jewish Bible with Rashi is basic learning, not delving.

@PrometheanRising 6 ай бұрын

Lol.

@davidjanbaz7728 6 ай бұрын

No , Dan but the person you've responding to in this video also has pathetic arguments: try responding to an actual scholar: i don't qualify but my arguments were actually credible and based on the whole chapter verses 1-27 . Keep debunking strawman arguments Dan as yours R incorrect also. God used the Pagan god to chastise sinful Israel in their sinful condition! God gave Judah and Edom the victory but prevented Israel from claiming any victory. The rath of Chemosh only effected sinful Israel. It was a divided kingdom Israel isn't Judah or Edom. YHWH still had 2 out of 3 kings in the fight: so how did he lose ? LOL 😂

@lnsflare1 6 ай бұрын

Because Quetzalcoatl actually took them both down simultaneously, thanks to his superior Kung Fu.

@mustachemac5229 6 ай бұрын

Lol. Yes ! (Edit) Since you edited your comment to be more than just "No !" I'll edit mine to give context to your edited OP. Refer to my next comment.

@blksmagma 6 ай бұрын

You're right, El took YHWH and put him in a time out.

@mustachemac5229 6 ай бұрын

He's responding to this person because they responded to him. How about you debate a scholar instead of wasting your time making comments while also making yourself seem like you are not coming at this with good faith?

@jackcimino8822 6 ай бұрын

Dan's goal is to fight against misinformation about religion, not debate someone whose knowledge is on par with his.