Wow he named books, how authoritative. Name dropping a bunch of books that already espouse the position you hold should not impress you. The fact that it does is kind of sad.

@@rainbowcoloredsoapdispenser The comment was tongue in cheek. However, At least he didn't just say "The consensus view is..." and then fail to mention who that consensus may be. That's better than most.

⁠@@rainbowcoloredsoapdispenserDan didn’t do that. His claim was that he shared the scholarly consensus. You’re confusing that claim with a different claim, such as “my interpretation is the one true interpretation.” If you want to refute the actual claim made, that Dan’s opinion is in line with the scholarly consensus, you’ve got some extra reading to do.

@MarcosElMalo2 saying you're in line with scholarly consensus isn't a claim, he either is in line or he isn't. In not saying that he's saying "my interpretation is the one true interpretation." What I'm saying is that just showing a bunch of books, especially when they're already in line with your own opinion, isn't proof of anything or impressive. Especially when one of those people is stavrakopolou, who, from what I've heard her say, is a joke. For all I, and you, know those books don't say anything about what this video is about. I haven't read them and neither have you. They could be about something entirely different and what I was meaning was people in this comment section saying wow what a great video, so informative when they have no idea what's in those books or what any of those people have to say, that's my point.

​@@rainbowcoloredsoapdispenserso this is a type of argument I see a lot in the anti-vax and anti-gmo ladies groups I grew up in too. That we "haven't done the research" and aren't allowed to speak unless we've basically personally held the hieroglyphs and personally learned the language. No one says this about high school history teachers funnily enough. We learned something from Dan, who is the one who happens to be teaching it, which is exactly what's taught at seminaries as you can find out for yourself by looking up bullet points they sometimes post online for their classes benefit. Views which are taught at main line accredited schools as what we know, are the consensus views. If you don't like the view because it clashes with your theology it sounds like you have an issue with the entire seminary school system, not Dan.

Don't be envious, be studious! 😁

@@MoreLifePlease I am 65 years old and my health isn't great. I think being studious enough to match Dan is beyond me. But I still do my small part.

Read the Quran

@@aaaalkahtani9185 It's a great book as is the Bible, Bhavagad Gita, Book of Mormon and Lotus Sutra. All have truth. All, but the Koran, support polytheism.

@@aaaalkahtani9185 I have read it and I own two copies. It's just more religious nonsense and not a single claim made in it can be demonstrated to be factual.

He has put in a lot of work to have that job, and I’m thankful he is sharing it with us in a comprehensive way. We need more Bible scholars like him cleaning up the harmful dogma of Churches! ❤

Eh, the rivalry between Storm Gods is all a bunch of hot air. *badum tssss I’ll be here all week, folks. Don’t forget to tip your waiters.

Personally, I favor Tláloc.

@@Aldrnari956what’s the cover charge to see your lightning performance?

I don't know who Lobo is but that definitely is a kick ass shirt🤘

I mean, he did refer to half a dozen books on the topic as where this information can be found. If you were being sarcastic, then my bad for not catching it.

@@Aldrnari956 That was irony not sarcasm.

Doesn't stop people in comments from trying 😂

Seriously, I want to know how many t-shirts he has! Also, does he organize his shirts in any way???

He could pivot his channel into lifestyle ​@@CharlesPayet

Just like any other tribe/nation at that time and in the region, the Israelites wanted their own god(s). So it's a combination of evolution and transformation from the Canaanite religion to Yahwism and from Yahwism to Judaism.

Tbf his own book is free to read online iirc

@@CB66941 which is nice. I may give it a read, when my brain has time to focus lol

Lol I hear you, @bigtom. However, you can download his book for free.

@thecompleathobeaux4493 I shall do it lol thanks for the heads up

Yep. Reading a lot of books is what scholars do. If he was a contractor he'd have lots of expensive tools and an expensive truck. If he was a musician, he'd have expensive instruments.

I wouldn't call Joseph a theophoric because it doesn't include a proper name of a god. Joseph would mean "our god will add", but it's not something like "Yahweh will add" or "El will add" or "Baal will add".

@@Nymaz joseph is a shortened form of jehoseph (Yehoseph) meaning "Yahweh added" masoretes most likely shortened the spelling to Yoseph.

@@jmcglory12 correct

I did a bit of digging last night. I bet there are more than just judah and joseph

Masoretes didn't change anything. The Dead Sea Scrolls already have the short form. The only occurrence of the long form is in the post-exilic Psalm 81, which isn't strong evidence that the form in Genesis has been shortened from a form that included the theophoric element.

😂

Where does Harry Potter fit in?

He responded to a comment by @jmcglory12 which was discussing Joseph's name being a reference to god. Another commenter said that the god referenced in Joseph's name is generic and not a proper name. Someone responded that Joseph's name was shortened from Jehoseph, which was a reference to YHWH, at some point in time through scribal error or editing. Dan said that the DSS, the current oldest written books of the Bible, recorded Joseph (not Jehoseph) as the correct name. I'm just conveying this info as it may be of interest to you; I am not an accredited biblical scholar nor am I an expert in ancient languages or cultures. 😅

Are Trump’s words printed in red letters? I can’t wait to read about the two Corinthians.

It's like how Mr. Deity refers to them as "excusagists". Believers don't WANT to follow up. All they want is someone to provide an excuse for why they don't have to dig too deeply into it. And that's what these creators provide.

Judah is from YDH, meaning "praise", not YHWH. They have the same first and last letters, but that's just a coincidence.

@@thomasdalton1508 incorrect

@@thomasdalton1508 do you read hebrew at all?

וַתַּהַר עוֹד וַתֵּלֶד בֵּן, וַתֹּאמֶר הַפַּעַם אוֹדֶה אֶת-יְהוָה--עַל-כֵּן קָרְאָה שְׁמוֹ, יְהוּדָה; וַתַּעֲמֹד, מִלֶּדֶת

@@tbishop4961 No, but I know how to look up an etymology.

Tried having conversations with Dan or with the other guy?

Somebody else wrote it?😳

uhhhh. Apparently you are, tho. lol. Can't have your cake and call it by antithetical/same names, yo. [nice try? nope]

I disagree. That's like asserting God did not create evil.

@@NWPaul72 dude. It's sarcasm

Well then the bible was not written by God

This paper goes into great detail on Deut, don't let the title throw you. Are There Gods, Angels, and Demons in Deuteronomy? Prof. Jonathan Ben-Dov Yes, you have to search as YT deletes links

Maybe he got promoted because he was almost uniquely worshipped among the Israelites. During the Babylonian Exile, maybe the Yahwehists felt the need to explain why they were captive if they were the chosen people of the best god. So they said Yahweh *is* in charge and used Nebuchadnezzar II to “punish Israel for its unrighteousness” and later used Cyrus to free the Israelites. But to do that, he would have to have control over foreign nations. (IIRC, this theme had also been applied to the Assyrian Conquest, too, so my idea is not cut-and-dried at all). The story of the Exodus and Yahweh manipulating Pharaoh may also be post-Exile.

Dan has a video addressing that very Psalm

Just look at which society survived. Their workings will normally last the longest. Conquering other people in the region will prove that your god is greater than the others.

Just for clarification on “Adoni” (if I’ve learned this properly from Dan) YHWH.. is how to write the name. “Adoni” is the respectful way Dan pronounces it, otherwise it would be “tetragrammaton” for the name of God of the Bible/Hebrew Bible.

No

@@Texasmade74 Please elaborate. You mean the OT only has One name for the One God? The video says it does not.

1. Because you're always free to read the papers of actual biblical scholars; 2. Because he doesn't owe you an argument. 3. Because he's making content for a popular audience.4 4. Because he's mentioned before that he's in the process of conducting a survey of his scholarly peers to do exactly what you seek.

I honestly can’t tell if you mischaracterize other people’s claims out of bad faith or because you’re incapable of reading, listening, or following an argument. Here’s what I mean: Dan makes the claim that is interpretation is within the scholarly consensus. And he says, here are the books from a variety of scholars that you can check for yourself if you don’t believe me. You misconstrue his claim and the reason why he references the books.

Then you’ve made incorrect conclusions. Perhaps the issue is in your basic assumptions? Perhaps there is weakness in your framework of certainty? I don’t know you or why you’d make such errors, but just a friendly suggestion: examine your faith to understand why it relies on certainty.

Dan never talks about his personal beliefs in any video, but he is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

@MarcosElMalo2 The fact that he speaks of gods...plural...when addressing the book of Genesis is all that's required. Scripture teaches there is ONE God. No mini, no second, no one and a half, just ONE.

​@@pandabear5221Maybe you should read it again, there are gods all over the place. If there were no other gods, the first commandment wouldn't be needed...

What do you mean by "contradicting scripture"? He demonstrates extensive familiarity here.

There you go again, attributing a claim not made. Go back and examine what claim Dan actually made. Or if you want to, take my word for it. Dan claimed that his interpretation was within the scholarly consensus. Then he showed us the books of those other scholars who form the consensus. If you think he is lying, you merely have to read one or more of those books. It is pretty clear that you’re posting comments in bad faith.

@MarcosElMalo2 I'm not arguing in bad faith. I'm saying that merely saying here's a bunch of books that agree with me while not telling us anything about them doesn't prove any point. I could name drop a bunch of books on why we have a young earth that's only 4000 years old by credentialed people. Would that prove anything, no it wouldn't other than people have written books about young earth creationism. For all I know, and for all you know if you haven't read those books, is that there are people espousing a position about the timeline of ancient israelite god worship that have written books about it. You haven't said why that's correct and neither has he. You don't get to name drop a bunch of books and then say (or at least imply) that that makes your position correct.