It truly is astonishing.

Yup

Dunning Kruger effect in play there.

Not astonishing at all. Ever since Reagan, the American right wing has evolved a strong distrust of academia and education and critical thinking. It is entirely in line with their general world view: Dan is wrong *because* he is an expert.

Why is it astonishing? That this HS educated fellow who is actually reading his Bible with it’s bad translation, might not know what he DOESN’T KNOW? Well there’s a great reason to bash him. And so easy to do online. Instant satisfaction.

He's also a good example of trusting in doctrinal interpretations developed millenia after a text was written as opposed to seeking the text's original intent.

@@artmoss6889 yes, so true. If they would be willing to do that and be honest about the text's original intent, they would understand that much of it just isn't applicable to our modern society and culture.

@@criticalthinker2477 applicability? Is in the eye of the beholder. The whole POINT of sacred texts is their universal applicability. The question is HOW to apply, what your exegetical hermeneutic is, and what to apply it to. The whole ‘this is irrelevant to our oh-so-progressive modern world’, is irreligious and itself irrelevant, ironically. Believers never approach a word of Scripture in this manner.

@@dorothysay8327 universal applicability? How does that work when we can't come to a consensus on how to apply the texts? Maybe some of us think it was only "sacred" to the Israelites who wrote those laws for their iron age life style in an ancient near east culture. You are fine to live your life that way but the problems come when you decide to "universally" apply them to the rest of us.

I didn’t find it calm, so much as smug.

​@@dorothysay8327😅 he's fun

⁠He is coming down from Ph.D education to explain someone who most likely only has a high school diploma and whom calls him out in a video on which Dan was not addressing anyone but giving his educated opinion. I honestly think he was very kind considering those facts.

this one only needed six takes /s

@@dorothysay8327Yeah, "smug" That's what I call people when I can't prove they are wrong.

Indeed!!!!

I find it strange that their all-knowing God would set it up for the daughters to rape their father in a cave after destroying their city for perversions and immoral acts. Such a good story.

It’s not just an illusion. It’s his belief. You’re not required to believe him.

In mainstream Christian teaching, the Holy Spirit gives discernment and is often necessary for proper comprehension.

the bible is one giant delusion.... just FYI it is fiction and used a pretense to rape children.

You made me laugh.

😂😂😂

Actually most renditions of the Bible (subtract modern paraphrase translations) are very carefully through through and poured over by scholars of their time. Capriciousness does not go into a biblical translation. It is true that like with all other disciplines, the science of language and its translation from one to another, progresses as does all human knowledge, over time; and we come to a greater understanding by comparing those very early texts, with others that were not always available to past scholars. But you’re right, many low-church Christians in America are appallingly trained (and not just in religious tradition and history) and tend to lap up whatever their charismatic preacher tells them; and he himself is often poorly trained. So there ya go.

the bible is a work of fiction.

This should open with "hey wanna see a dead body"

Strong “peach tea in a mason jar” vibes.

yeah but dan is trying to whitewash his holy book's repressive treatment of human sexuality by quibbling about semantics

@@scambammer6102 ???

@@scambammer6102 Actually Dan is not trying to whitewash the bible. You see it in his treatment of Paul's opinions about the Greeks. He disapproved of Paul's reading of why the Greeks had gay sex (because they worshipped the created instead of the creator, God gave them over to unnatural affections ... etc.). It seems to me that when the bible is narrow minded, he doesn't mind letting you know. For example, he emphazised that the bible condones slavery. And he has spoken against univocality and the inerrancy reading of the bible, something the fanatics clearly don't appreciate. But sometimes modern people misread ancient text, both because of modern politics and modern cultural understanding being forced on the text, and sometimes because traditions and translations have muddled the understanding of the text. And THEN he tries to correct the misunderstanding. It is not to defend OR slander the bible, it's just to attempt a more accurate reading (at least that's how it seems to me). The bible say many bad things, and then modern man add some more that is NOT in the text 😏

@@busylivingnotdying It's politically incorrect to criticize gays so Dan is conveniently "interpreting" the bible so as not to do that when it totally does. Dan isn't the only one that does that. All of the pop biblical scholars do. Same thing with the Bible's treatment of women. Even assuming some of the worst passages are interpolations, they are still part of the holy scriptures that christians have worshipped for near 2000 years within an extremely patriarchal system. Pop scholars try to make the bible palatable for modern audiences, when it is really primitive and disgusting garbage that should be forgotten ASAP.

@@scambammer6102 I don't know Dan's motives, so I'm not going to say anything about that. But if I understand him correctly, he is not saying that various authors in the bible was not condemning certain types of gay sex (as well as a lot of other types of sex we respect today). It is just that the PARTICULAR kind of sexual activity they were talking about was foreign to us and very different from what we talk about today: 1. In the old testament world: Using sex as punishment in war. David and Samson cut off foreskins and the inhabitans of Sodom wanted to dominate sexually the angels visiting. This kind of activity is ILLEGAL today as well (we call it rape and sexual assault). 2. In the new testament world (the Greek world): Older "dominant," upper class men subjugated young men (often slaves and lower class soldiers) for their own pleasure. This kind of activity is frowned upon today as well. Sexual orientation and stable, mutual and respectful homosexual pairing was unknown both in the NT and OT - times. This does not make the bible "woke" or "progressive." It is just that its fingerpointing was directed at (to us) strange habits people had THEN. Fundamentalists don't understand that "times changes" and interprets ancient text as directives for modern lives that were unknown to biblical authors.

Ah, but due to the guilt complex instilled in christians by forcing on them a non existent crime of "sin", all christians hate themselves. So to "love as you love yourself" means to hate. It's one of those, "you can't divide by zero" situations 😜

EXACTLY.

“Neighbor” probably means “fellow Israelite” in the Hebrew Bible. People who worshipped a particular god tended to live close to each other.

Against Halakic laws. We don't allow tattoo s . שלום

Ah but you forget that all the laws of Leviticus that are inconvenient for a right-wing authoritarian American in 2023 conveniently happen to be something called "ceremonial laws" which don't count. Whereas all the ones they like are conveniently "moral laws" which do.

How smug can we be. Surely we can be ….smug-er.

absolutely no knowledge to be gained from the bible. it is a work of fiction intended to enslave humans until they die.

He did try (with marking passages and stuff), but his tone was waaaay apart from any kind of respect.

"I don't speak spanking" 😂

@@AurorXZ lmao. If not for you, I never would have noticed that, so I'm not even gonna edit it out. Probably my greatest typo ever

@@StannisHarlock Please don't-it's fantástico!

Mic- drop. You know Dan is LDS, right?

FREEZE-FRAME!

sold your memories

@@jimgsewell "I" didn't sell them... it was the Sodomites!

Well, he sure does seem like a can-do kinda guy. I think he does his own tattoos!

I saw an interview with a former christian not too long ago (can't remember much else about it so apologies that I can't point you to it) where they mentioned that they highlighted their book somewhat randomly because they were trying to "perform" being a good christian and somewhere in their conception of what that means, "person who highlights passages in the Bible" became a part of it. I can't help but think that they were not the only person who ever did this.

You should feel sorry for him. He’s been misinformed.

@@dorothysay8327 He himself has the responsibility to verify that information that he was misinformed with, just as I did. I feel more sorry for those he is currently misinforming.

Bart Ehrman fairly recently interviewed a woman (it's somewhere on his channel... I think around January 2023?) who was on the NRSV-UE committee and she spoke on this, saying that it was a debate between the various scholars doing the translation and the religious institutions funding the project. She explains that it ultimately was essentially a compromise because there was no clear consensus.

I'd also argue that "went after other flesh" means basically nothing in English as I'm concerned. You'd need another footnote which explains that it means something like desire for intercourse with angelic/supernatural beings. Perhaps a rendition of "supernatural lust" or "lust towards the divine" with the direct translation footnoted would be better. I'm not sure, but it's probably a slightly dicey judgement call between intelligibility and direct translation.

@@MsFitz134 _"the religious institutions funding the project"_ says it all.

@@MsFitz134 They wanna sell bibles, and they are not going to sell many if they revert things like 1 John 5 to its original greek meaning.

Lust directed toward angels is the unnatural lust.

Yeah, perhaps I'm missing a key part of what they were debating when Jude was written, but I don't see how desiring what they _perceived to be men_ was "immoral" because they were _not men._ The desire wasn't "for" angels, but for what they appeared as.

Dan elides this whole issue. Conveniently.

I believe you mean ‘hasn’t educated them properly’. And THANK YOU for giving this guy the modicum of human dignity snd residency he deserves. He’s wrong; he’s been reading a faulty translation. But why pile on him for this, in some smug, elitist way?

@@dorothysay8327 Yes, thank you.

You are correct, most of them are “not trying to be idiots” as they are idiots without even trying.

@@dorothysay8327 There are two problems with this: One, he is not just a misinformed debater but a disseminator of ignorance and proud of it. This wouldn't be a huge problem if it wasn't for: The other, which is that he is deliberately promoting hatred and violence against people for not agreeing with his misinterpretation.

I knows wut I knows, don't bother me with yer book lernin

"I have the holy spirit and an English translation of a book written in languages that I haven't studied and you have that tell me that I am right and you are wrong". I agree that someone looks silly but it isn't Dan.

I'm sure he knows more than all the scientists, too!

God gave us King James's Book, and King Henry's Foot to use forever and never change!!

Many early Christians believed that the Septuagint was good enough for God and that there was no reason anyone ought to look into Hebrew translations. Those who did realize that the Hebrew text was older often still held that it did not become divinely inspired until translated into Greek.

But they don’t cling to the “literal text of the bible”, they only cling to the bits that hurt the people they hate.

@@BB-rh2ml Correct!

Homosexuality did exist, however the Ancient and Classical World in western Eurasia held a strong tradition of bisexuality along with it, which can also be observed in many mythical or historical figures of the period often attributed as being homosexual who were more likely bisexual, although guessing sexualities of dead people is a bit hard. Essentially from the period's view, a hole's a hole, whoever is the owner of the hole is irrelevant. Masculinity is defined by taking/seizing, thus anyone who is the receiver is feminine by definition. Thus to their view, nobody giving is 'gay', they are merely 'man'. In the view of the ancients, the modern perception of gay men would be best equated to those who took the role of receiver, which normally ended once they hit maturity. Social condemnation would come if a person still kept receiving after maturity, as it made the rest of society view them as weak, effeminate. Meanwhile the person fucking them, even if the receiver was grown, would almost never be construed as 'gay', because he is simply fulfilling his male obligation of seizing and dominating.

People view themselves and others differently largely based on cultural frameworks. Modern ideas of sexuality as an individualistic permanent identity didn't exist in those cultures. Individualistic permanent identity as a cultural concept is not shown in what remains of these cultures and isn't a universal cultural concept even today - there have been debates for centuries as to whether that's a good/healthy/accurate way to discuss sense of self and it is far from settled, though most Western ideas around it have grown more in this vein over the last hundred years or so. Sexual behaviour was treated as just that, a behaviour, until we get to the post-'enlightenment' Western academic obsession of turning behaviours and traits into defining identity categories. There were several terms used to describe what we now would call gay/homosexual, but much like the many terms they came for race, most of them fell out of use and what we use now will likely fall out of use in time. So, while there have always been people who were attracted to people of the same sex, we can't really say there has 'always been' any sexuality if we're treating sexuality as a permanent identity based on experiencing that attraction. It can be a convenient way to describe it through time and place, but it like every lens like this isn't the default or universal way of seeing this.

@@dehn6581 @wyattw9727 Very helpful and well thought out responses - thank you!

I know from personal, empirical experience this is not true.

@@dorothysay8327 So, Christ showed up and told them that? I must have missed out on that one.

0:00 "Do not harass this creator or comment on their appearance or speech"

@@naysneedle5707I'de be so glory blessed by Gee Hovah if he got off dat dere chinese communist Teek Tock thangy and come ha'ear to so we cood chew the fat. Doncha thank?

I dont think book has an emotion more like God does not like it. It is his word after all.

@@obsidian3379 no, the book is a personal being. We are the best of friends.