I admire the creator for having a go, having had my theology crumble on impact with the older pantheon. I cried for weeks on end, but I have to admit I laughed out loud when the penny dropped why God all along had had 2 identities 😂! These discussions bring out such amazing details & book recommendations, so big props to dude replying. Right, off to see Part 2
@Jasn_Chvz5 ай бұрын
One must acknowledge that belief in any particular version of Christianity necessitates an adherence rooted solely in faith.
@perrywilliams54075 ай бұрын
Dr. Dan, I cannot express how deeply grateful I am that you take such a measured and reasoned approach to these discussions. In a time in which diatribe and vitriol are the coin of the realm, it is so refreshing to hear rationality take its rightful seat at the table.
@somersetcace15 ай бұрын
1:24 `But this _is_ the consensus view," proceeds to not only name them, or the books they've written on the subject, but actually present the books themselves! Now, _that's_ backing up what you say.
@rainbowcoloredsoapdispenser5 ай бұрын
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.
@somersetcace15 ай бұрын
@@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.
@MarcosElMalo25 ай бұрын
@@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.
@rainbowcoloredsoapdispenser5 ай бұрын
@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.
@darkcircles065 ай бұрын
@@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.
@theoutspokenhumanist5 ай бұрын
I have been debating and exchanging letters with theists for almost 40 years and I think i have a handle on most of their arguments. What I love about Dan's work is the fine detail that underlines the broader points. It's truly fascinating and I am deeply envious.
@MoreLifePlease5 ай бұрын
Don't be envious, be studious! 😁
@theoutspokenhumanist5 ай бұрын
@@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.
@aaaalkahtani91855 ай бұрын
Read the Quran
@mmcbride15 ай бұрын
@@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.
@theoutspokenhumanist5 ай бұрын
@@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.
@theonetruetim5 ай бұрын
You one bad A Bastich, Dan! Love it U present the most admirably respectable 'in yo face's i done ever. Frag On! Main man! Frag on!
@danjohnston90375 ай бұрын
I'm jealous of Dan His job seems such fun I guess we should just assume Storm Gods will not get along
@toddshaeffer5 ай бұрын
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! ❤
@Aldrnari9565 ай бұрын
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.
@benjaminlesue13725 ай бұрын
Personally, I favor Tláloc.
@MarcosElMalo25 ай бұрын
@@Aldrnari956what’s the cover charge to see your lightning performance?
@luisespinoza51325 ай бұрын
Not to sound like I thoroughly enjoy your polite savagery, but to continue your efforts of “Data over Dogma”. Do you plan on making videos that address Jonathan Cahn’s claims?
@integrationalpolytheism5 ай бұрын
Not just Lobo, but Lobo from the excellent Lobo's Back miniseries! Very apt.
@niknotnikki5 ай бұрын
I don't know who Lobo is but that definitely is a kick ass shirt🤘
@Theprofessorator5 ай бұрын
I'm a little worried for this guy if this is just "Part 1"
@ryanrevland43332 күн бұрын
You're doing important work here Dan!
@dannyboyakadandaman504furl95 ай бұрын
Your videos are very informative.
@Chronoplague5 ай бұрын
It sure is hard to argue meaning when you don't speak the language or check to see if the word you're debating is even in the text. 🤦♀️
@OldManBrodie5 ай бұрын
It's always funny to me when these people misunderstand Dan (deliberately or not) and then argue against the strawman that follows, and Dan's all "Once again, for those in the back..."
@captionhere195 ай бұрын
Really wish dan cited his sources in this video
@Aldrnari9565 ай бұрын
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.
@sigmaoctantis18925 ай бұрын
@@Aldrnari956 That was irony not sarcasm.
@givemeyourpath5 ай бұрын
Does this apply to other deities such as Chemosh too?
@tussk.5 ай бұрын
Remember kids, God is not the author of confusion.
@theonetruetim5 ай бұрын
uhhhh. Apparently you are, tho. lol. Can't have your cake and call it by antithetical/same names, yo. [nice try? nope]
@NWPaul725 ай бұрын
I disagree. That's like asserting God did not create evil.
@JopJio5 ай бұрын
Well then the bible was not written by God
@MoreLifePlease5 ай бұрын
I'm perplexed by Dan's characteristic vocalization of the tetragrammaton YHVH as "Adonai"---I've always seen Adonai rendered as "Lord"---rather than the traditional "Yahweh" or "Jehovah", which seem to make more sense by virtue of the consonants employed. Can someone enlighten me on this point? Thanks.
@MoreLifePlease5 ай бұрын
@@tbishop4961 Is that so as to avoid uttering God's name by using a title instead? I know many devout Jews even omit the title in English, rendering God as "G-d" or some such.
@AndrewPrinios-if4sq5 ай бұрын
The Bible -Such an interesting book people devout their whole lives to hating it, studying it or living for it- may be something to it.
@monikasmithsonian29856 күн бұрын
Same goes for the Koran
@joewhip93035 ай бұрын
Dan, you must have a very large closet.
@CharlesPayet5 ай бұрын
Seriously, I want to know how many t-shirts he has! Also, does he organize his shirts in any way???
@LeGrandJohnson5 ай бұрын
He could pivot his channel into lifestyle @@CharlesPayet
@bigtombowski5 ай бұрын
What I learned from this is that Dan has a lot -of money with which to buy expensive- books
@CB669415 ай бұрын
Tbf his own book is free to read online iirc
@bigtombowski5 ай бұрын
@@CB66941 which is nice. I may give it a read, when my brain has time to focus lol
@dhobonov5 ай бұрын
Lol I hear you, @bigtom. However, you can download his book for free.
@bigtombowski5 ай бұрын
@thecompleathobeaux4493 I shall do it lol thanks for the heads up
@Tmanaz4805 ай бұрын
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.
@zemog19905 ай бұрын
Ezra restored the scriptures (by the Holy Spirit (i know thats a problem for you Dan)) and the name is placed at that time. But when we dont allow faith to be apart of the equation. Problems ensue.
@desperateambrose53735 ай бұрын
Sands: Does he have a name?' Cucuy: They call him "El", as in "The". Sands: I know what it means, thank you. ~ "Once Upon A Time In Mexico" 😋
@markaponte70575 ай бұрын
Scolar on the bible is like being a comic book expert
@ronjones14145 ай бұрын
This is a twist I haven't heard from Dan. Israel always worshipped the highest God, and somewhere along the line over 300 years the offspring of the High God and the High God merged. I have to wonder how someone would have an issue with Jesus being God when YHWH became EL?
@brettandersson32065 ай бұрын
So, does this make Adonai something akin to a demiurge-type figure or should they been seen as more of an evolution of Canaanite spirituality? Or maybe they replaced this storm deity and over time assumed the role of Most High? Btw, genuinely curious, I have no horse in this race.
@KasperKatje5 ай бұрын
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.
@benjaminlesue13725 ай бұрын
My favorite rain diety is Tláloc.
@jmcglory125 ай бұрын
@Dan you mentioned names in Genesis didn't have the theophoric names. What about the name Joseph? Never thought about this but that's really the only name I can think off top of my head.
@Nymaz5 ай бұрын
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".
@jmcglory125 ай бұрын
@@Nymaz joseph is a shortened form of jehoseph (Yehoseph) meaning "Yahweh added" masoretes most likely shortened the spelling to Yoseph.
@maklelan5 ай бұрын
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.
@jmcglory125 ай бұрын
@@maklelan thank you. How are you able to see the form written in the DSS? Is it from the online digital DSS? I would really like to see this.
@maklelan5 ай бұрын
@@jmcglory12 I have digital and print critical editions of the Dead Sea Scrolls. It's a little harder to find using the online digital scrolls, but you can see two occurrences on the right side of the fourth and fifth lines from the bottom here: www.deadseascrolls.org.il/explore-the-archive/image/B-294999
@k98killer5 ай бұрын
"The problem with this video is that I agree with it, so I'm instead going to disagree with something nobody said." Lol. This is the most argumentative "I concur" that I've ever seen.
@AndreBentrup5 ай бұрын
Exodus 23:20-21 ESV [20] “Behold, I send an angel before you to guard you on the way and to bring you to the place that I have prepared. [21] Pay careful attention to him and obey his voice; do not rebel against him, for he will not pardon your transgression, for my name (!) is in him. /// Daniel 9:15 ESV [15] And now, O Lord our God, who brought your people out of the land of Egypt with a mighty hand, and have made a name for yourself, as at this day, we have sinned, we have done wickedly. /// Jeremiah 32:20 ESV [20] You have shown signs and wonders in the land of Egypt, and to this day in Israel and among all mankind, and have made a name for yourself, as at this day. /// This is why YHWH shows up "late"
@alanb88845 ай бұрын
But what if this hurts your feelings?
@haramanggapuja4 ай бұрын
So if we have evidence of a group of people who believe that two divine beings (Yhwh & Baal) fighting like two princes for the same throne (the storm god title), this speaks volumes of the nature of early pastoralist/early agricultural societies’ myth systems. This to me says that the divine being stories of the surviving Hebrew texts are no different from the surviving Greek, Roman, Hindu, Tibetan, Uyğur, Norse or Finnic myths and gods and that makes the continued reliance of humanity on obviously paleolithic (and earlier) explanations of the universe pitifully childish.
@welcometonebalia5 ай бұрын
Thank you.
@CrisusAttucks3 ай бұрын
that other dude never references any scholarly article or consensus, he's just spewing typical apologetic dogma
@HangrySaturn3 ай бұрын
Source? Dan: 1:18
@RandomSelectGaming5 ай бұрын
To me, from what I've observed, if someone tries to debunk Dan it just shows that they have zero respect for their audience because they know they're too dumb to follow anything up.
@Nymaz5 ай бұрын
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.
@chables745 ай бұрын
I’m not trying to say that they are, it’s purely my limited knowledge of the grammar making me ask; anyone know why we don’t think names like Jacob, Joseph, or Judah have theophoric connotations to Hashem?
@MM-jf1me4 ай бұрын
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. 😅
@fordprefect53045 ай бұрын
IF "Adoni" wasn't the top god why does he get promoted to top god. In Psalm 82, “Yahweh stands in the divine assembly of El. Among the divinities, he pronounces judgment… Arise O Yahweh, judge the world; for You inherit all the nations.”
@fordprefect53045 ай бұрын
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
@scienceexplains3025 ай бұрын
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.
@xaayer5 ай бұрын
Dan has a video addressing that very Psalm
@NYCFenrir5 ай бұрын
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.
@toddshaeffer5 ай бұрын
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.
@thefnaffan25 ай бұрын
It's all mythology. Lol
@JJMcCullough5 ай бұрын
Can you review the new Bible Trump is selling?
@MarcosElMalo25 ай бұрын
Are Trump’s words printed in red letters? I can’t wait to read about the two Corinthians.
@jjcole65445 ай бұрын
*than it is 2:51
@bungalobill794127 күн бұрын
This McClellan guy makes constant appeals to authority and popularity. His go to argument.
@bpdrumstudio5 ай бұрын
I have tried to have conversations with this guy online he's literally impossible to talk to or to deal with lots of fallacious reasoning and straw man arguments coupled with his arrogance
@mountpennart5 ай бұрын
Tried having conversations with Dan or with the other guy?
@danlds174 ай бұрын
You seem to have a "Hebrew roots" background, since you are careful to say "Adonai" whenever "Yahweh" appears in the actual text. I do not think it's sacrilege to say "Yahweh" (or YHWH or Jehovah etc.). This whole idea of name substitution based upon "respect" is a scam, since the Israelites wanted to (and did) worship many other gods based upon this ambiguity.
@atwaterkent9115 ай бұрын
Seems the OT has many names for the One God. Arabs call Him Allah (God), Rabb (Lord). And Islam has 99 Names for the One God - His Attributes. Seems to reflect that different OT writers were from different cultures, or maybe the blending of cultures that had their own unique Name for the One God, so Names were used interchangeably. Am sure the "100" or so books on this issue say this in one form or another...
@atwaterkent9115 ай бұрын
@@Texasmade74 Please elaborate. You mean the OT only has One name for the One God? The video says it does not.
@glenwillson50735 ай бұрын
Appealing to scholarly consensus is the fallacy of "appeal to the expert" on steroids. There is no safety in numbers, one expert or 100 experts, it's still the same fallacy. Because Dan assumes there is no God &/or God had nothing to do with the authorship of the OT & NT writings, he is forced to find other explanations such as, "Israelites evolved out of the Canaanite Pantheon". There is another possible logical explanation. The Israelites are a correction of the pre-existing muddled mix of a little truth & mostly error that was the Canaanite etc. Pantheon.
@rainbowcoloredsoapdispenser5 ай бұрын
Look at all these books that already agree with my own view. How impressive, sir. And one of them is 1000+ pages, well then it has to be right.
@MarcosElMalo25 ай бұрын
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.
@rainbowcoloredsoapdispenser5 ай бұрын
@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.
@inphilosophersgarb80995 ай бұрын
Here is a fun game, why don't you back up all your claims of consensus with sociological data? Since you are so confident that your view is the consensus, surely there must be some surveys that have been done on this topic that have informed you of that. Right? Why don't you cite those instead of making baseless assertions? If you want to use consensus to make an argument, you need to support the claim that the consensus supports your position, and then show why something being consensus has evidentiary weight.
@tchristianphoto5 ай бұрын
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.
@MarcosElMalo25 ай бұрын
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.
@pandabear52215 ай бұрын
Someone referenced you, so I came and listened and watched for a few days...now I know who you are. I've concluded you are a "scholar " who don't believe in God and spend your time acquiring "knowledge " that causes confusion and contradicts Scripture. One of many.
@MarcosElMalo25 ай бұрын
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.
@CharlesPayet5 ай бұрын
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.
@pandabear52215 ай бұрын
@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.
@KasperKatje5 ай бұрын
@@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...
@TheFranchiseCA5 ай бұрын
What do you mean by "contradicting scripture"? He demonstrates extensive familiarity here.