allow me to introduce you to “flat earthers”

There is nothing better than the combo of being absolutely confident and totally wrong.

@@andrewjarvis6942Very much depends on how much of a stake you personally have on the outcome.

Was thinking the same

So all of them?

Do they even *know* he's an actual scholar?

@@KaiHenningsen I guess they don't care. They just think anyone who doesn't agree with them can't be correct.

Because God is on their side. This allows them to be just as Arrogant.

You are officially my guru 😂😂😂😂😂

Flawless rhetoric. Indeed, your argument must be divinely inspired😂

Bonus points if you thrust a sharp implement through your Bible and pierced those exact words---"THE CODE UNLOCKED!"

@@digitaljanus Pierced with, say... a railroad spike? If you used a pocket Bible, your odds of hitting all the words goes up dramatically.

But the bible says that the unbelievers will scorn the bible. The se ond thing you say in your con.

Speaking of telling the truth, the Bible clearly doesn't "tell the truth" in regards to the world wide Flood story, as that clearly never happened and is easily disprovable lol.

I used to work in auto claims and any time someone started their statement with "now I am a good Christian..." I knew right away to be on guard. What did that have to do with your auto accident?

@@lde-m8688 "Jesus took the wheel, therefore, I am not at fault."

The debate here is specifically about what Bible says, not wether it's true, so that's besides the point.

I dont think it is disingenuousness in this case. I think its a matter of they havent unhooked themselves from circular reasoning . They assume the canon bible is 100% true and therefore all text in it as stated in english must be correct. As long as someone makes these assumptions, they will not be able to understand ancient writing and how these texts actually came to be. In other words, so long as one accepts a conclusoon first, the arguments become irrelevant

@@philswaim392 What throws me (maybe because I never was Christian in any form) is citing Timothy referencing scripture, and including Timothy in Timothy's own category of "scripture." Like, to my eye even if it had reliable provenance it would be referring to the older stuff, like the Tanach. Even if it were written by Paul the dates I'm seeing put it at like 60 CE, before all the gospels, so citing it to say the gospels (and itself) are inspired feels backwards to me.

@@huttj509 That's univocality for ya. Presuppose that the book is speaking in one voice (in this case the inspired word of Bible god) then pesky things like orientation in time stop mattering. You can just hand wave any contradictions with a variety of vague justifications and, because the goal is to affirm what you already believe rather than examine the data on its own merits, you can rest safe in the bubble of your own circular reasoning. It's true because it says that it's true. Which, honestly, it's a great example to keep handy when examining your own beliefs and reasoning. We're all susceptible to cognitive biases and irrational thinking. While knowing what those errors can look like is not a complete panacea against committing them, having something to compare to is always useful.

They just can't comprehend the idea that the bible is not, literally, the Word of God. They've never even considered the possibility. It's so obvious...which is why they have to reach to try to defend it. In the bible , it says that all scriptures are God breathed!!!!! Obviously that means that ... the modern version of the bible is literally God's words. Let's see it! As has been pointed out (in the video and in the comments), the only problem with the claim that" All scriptures are God-breathed" comes in the question of what is meant by "scriptures" and what is meant by "God-breathed". Other than that, it's perfectly clear.

"and the Bible is all God ever wrote and it's all he will ever write or say"

​@@flowingafterglow629 They can't even imagine a scenario where 99% of the bible is true, but someone sneaked in a little story of his own invention. They need to think that's impossible but they can't reason why it is so.

Yes why? lol

I was wondering the same 😂

Isn't referring to Dan as 'this guy' kind of an ad hominem by implication? The unstated implication is probably two-fold. The first implication is that Dan has no expertise in the subject matter and is just a random dude on the internet. The second implication is that Dan is just some guy and not the Bible. For once, I have to hand it to an apologist. Dan is clearly not the Bible.

I could never get that correct. What’s the right usage?

@@spinnwebe_ the way Dan uses it here, using what you want to show as a premise in the proof. The modern way is now accepted, too.But I know what you mean, it's very hard to think of a really good illustration. "Argument in which the premises assume the conclusion without supporting it", i.e. circular reasoning. The modern usage simply means, raising a.question. I had to look it up ("petitio principii") to get it straight in my head again!

@@ritawing1064 begging the question means circular reasoning. anyone who uses it as just raising a question is a moron.

except the argument here is that spoken words were more "inspired" than written words. your point doesn't explain that.

@@scambammer6102 - I wasn't really talking about what is inspired and what is not at all. I was talking about how we can type letters into a phone and send it electronically for someone else to read and call that process "talking." I never spoke. You didn't hear me speak. But "talking" sounds perfectly natural anyway. That was different back then. The difference between speech and writing was more pronounced. I just find that interesting. Divinity and inspiration are a separate topic.

⁠@@BradyPostma you’re right. We don’t appreciate that what’s obvious and unremarkable to us was very different to our ancestors. When human societies were mostly illiterate the fact that an arrangement of random signs/shapes contained a meaning that could be extracted by the initiated and turned into spoken words was seen as a kind of magic. I first realized that when studying Norse mythology, which was only transmitted orally. Writing was almost non existent among Vikings and had a mystical aura about it. “As well as being a literal alphabet used during the Viking ages, runes were (and still are by some) believed to hold power, symbolize inherent qualities and values and be associated with magic, as well as having meanings in more modern divination and oracle reading practices too.”

Yes the background is BYU campus, but judging by the scripture edition he is using as reference I would say he is likely not LDS.

@@JennyMcBride14 he is LDS

@@scambammer6102 Really who is the creator? I was wondering the same thing

I assumed it was because Dan is a BYU alumni but I could be wrong

Yeah why is that a thing? lol

The dog whistle is strong with that one. He clearly took what Dan said personally and wanted to try and make it personal back the other way.

if you don't believe all of it there's no reason to believe any of it

@@scambammer6102 Why is that the case? That's essentially throwing the baby out with the bath water.

@@ChrisRobison because there's no reasonable basis to distinguish different parts of the Bible as "divinely inspired" or not. It's all bath water.

I was raised Christian, but for me the '"Word of God" was Jesus. I could possibly grant the words attributed to Jesus as "Word of God". The bible was divinely inspired. You know... the Holy Spirit inspired the authors to write the text but it's human words that can be misunderstood. 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome[a] it. John 1. (NIV) When Christians talk about the Bible as "The Word of God", it makes me uncomfortable even as a current atheist. It feels like blasphemy and I'm shocked that Christians forgot the gospel of John. I get what you are saying though. The mental game was that "Because it is in the Bible, the holy spirit allowed it and thus, it has some form of truth that we can discover if we pray and meditate on the meaning." (This is how I dragged my family into observing Jewish religious aspects. IF it was good for Jesus to observe Passover, I should do it as a child of God. If Jesus won't eat pork, I won't eat pork. I was insane and I'm so sorry to my family for forcing them to this nonsense. At one time, I tried to go "fruits" because .. you guessed it.. Garden of Eden. I was insane when I was religious.) Please note, I'm an atheist. This was my mindset as a Christian. This was how I justified inaccuracies such as evolution and the creation myths for example. Now, it just seems like historical artifacts that are interesting but not real. For me, when a Christian babbles about God's wrath, it reminds me of stories in Greek and Roman mythology. I just look at these individuals and privately think "they're insane. They're delusional. What is wrong with them?" (Yes, every single Christian, even Dr. McClellan, is insane for believing this magical nonsense can be true. Every time a Christian prays, all I see is rain dance prayer spells Harry Potter abracadabra performance art.)

@@scambammer6102 sure there is no common framework, but discovering the divine is not a scientific venture either, nor can it be. And approaching it in that way would just be frustrating and lead to throwing away the good and the bad.

Me too!!! He's not LDS right? I was trying to figure out who he is lol

Yesss I knew somebody had to be talking about this haha

Dan went to BYU as an undergrad, so I think its the creator's attempt to play the man instead of the ball.

Yes, at the time those verses in 2 Timothy were being written. The consensus over what books would eventually be accepted and collected in the New Testament wouldn't be formalized until the late 300s CE.

Because the OT condemns everything that jewish people didn't do but their neighbours did. The main concern of the priests was cultural assimilation. If you undersand that, all those silly commandments (don't wear mixed fabrics, don't boil a young goat in the milk of their mother...) start to make sense. 'Occult practices' probably refers to any half-understood foreign religious ritual.

Remember that at the time that a lot of the stories were being written down, the Israelites had been under some form of occupation or vassalage for a thousand years and they had recently come under vassalage to Rome. This sparked a sort of hyper conservative, ethno-centric, Make Israel Great Again! kind of mentality. As Juan said, this resulted in an effort to resist "outside" cultural influences. The priest class were the adjudicators of this developing orthopraxy. And so, alongside condemning practices seen as "other", they tied those practices into notions of ritual purity. And as we know, fear of death is one of the primary motivations for religious belief and a very effective tool for social control. If one partakes in these "unclean" practices, they will be unworthy in the eyes of god. If one is unclean in the eyes of god, one will not see their loved ones or ancestors when they die. So yes, these condemnations were purely political. They were a way of securing and defining the boundaries of power through fear and manipulation of people's beliefs about death and the afterlife. The Bible, hebrew and christian, is politics playing out across time. The versions of the stories that were preferred by the elites were preserved. The meaning of those stories was later reinterpreted to justify the rule of later elites. Warlords love justifying their rule by inserting themselves into the lineage of mythological patriarchs. You see it in the various kings lists from the region, you see it in the Bible, you see it today. Everything is politics. This conversation over the internet? Deeply political. So it's never a question of "were there political or cultural reasons". It's "what political and cultural reasons". Politics and culture are entwined and happening in everything we do.

It’s that glassy stare as he talks, I can’t get over it

as opposed to the literal sock puppet Dan had on yesterday

Also, the words all scripture is an absolute and extremely vage. Does that mean it includes the Talmud or the writings of Mekubbal or maybe Zohar as well? 😂 Does that also include all the gnostic Christian scripture? They will say no, only the Bible. With apocrypha or without? 😂😂

​@@MalekMagicianPR If memory serves that was part of what Dan addressed in that video that this creator has sampled out of context. This creator wants to establish "the scripture" as the Word of God, but doesn't even address the most basic question of that - what are the scriptures? Would the people of the time of 2 Timothy have considered the scriptures to be something different? Is the point of this verse intended to declare _any_ particular set of texts as the direct intercession of God? etc. So yeah, that's the joke I was getting at - he decides to dip into Greek to make a spurious argument, but cbf dipping into it to look at the fundamental thing at issue. And if we took his methods of using Greek out of context, then every single drawing, painting or writing in existence should be considered a holy relic inspired by God. But that creator has a habit of taking the most vapid possible readings he can to defeat the most anaemic strawman arguments he can come up with.

@@MalekMagicianPR The most hilarious thing I've learned from Dan so far is that the reason the Apocrypha is no longer printed in Protestant Bibles is because of a decision a couple publishers made less than two centuries ago because of capitalism, but some continue to believe the 66-book Bible they use is the inerrant Word of God. I could not invent a more ridiculous description of Anglophone evangelicalism if I tried.

@@Zahaqiel At the time 2 Timothy was written, "scripture" would have only consisted of the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible, most likely the Septuagint, since the 2 Timothy author spoke and wrote Greek.

@@tchristianphoto Sure, but there's two problems with raising that observation: 1. This creator does not believe that to be the meaning of the passage (they want to insist that it covers everything in their current Bible), and 2. This creator believes taking words out of the context of the passage and just reading all the possible definitions of the word is a good and valid way of assessing what is meant in context. If we apply his methods to that passage in its entirety rather than the one phrase he wants to zoom in on, then the verse itself is meaningless and says that all drawings, paintings and writings are "God-breathed". And if we don't want to apply his methods, then it doesn't say what _he_ wants it to say.

They have no choice too. The Bible is an all or nothing thing for them. And 2 Timothy's rhetoric, regardless of its true origins, makes for the strongest case from their view. It's easier just to be willfully ignorant of scholarship, or to be dishonest about it. Or, funniest of all, chalk "liberal" scholarship as a conspiracy theory against Christianity.

because none of the texts are authoritative. Paul was a nut job, and the gospels are fan fiction.

@@scambammer6102 I said least authoritative. 1. Paul identifies himself and defines himself in galations. 2. He declares his association with the movement, for better or worse Thats his authority What is the authority of 2nd peter. Chopped up the text of jude into a dozen pieces, jude is essentially a reworking of Enochian literature. Enoch are apocryphal scriptures. The dozen pieces of jude are interwoven with Second century theology. Moreover the author of 2 peter declares himself a hypocrit when he proclaims to others not to read the works of forgers.

@@FaptainCalcon750 If you choose to stand in front a tree you chopped to fall in your direction, then dont report at the pearly gates that a tree killed you. If you choose to contest scholars with the least authoritative text, then don't cry about your soreness of your butt when they screw you. They are not presenting their in grandma's cubboard. They are presenting on tic-tock and you-tube where 1000s of scholars can see them. BTW its not just christians, There are a fair number of jews who use Daniel as evidence for a coming messiah.

@@Darisiabgal7573 none of it is "authoritative". paul has better provenance.

there's no particular reason to think Paul knew what he was talking about either.

Where does the bible say it's free of errors?

Watch the video, then comment.

He said that the phrase "word of God" does not appear in the Bible to refer to itself. He doesn't go into what correct interpretation is. That's what theologists do.

Praying to imaginary God won't help you 😂😂😂

Doesn't the Bible say something about not praying in public? Maybe God is sending these persecutors to try to tell you something...

AS the Son of God, you would think Christ would have his own words but when you deal with mythology, the deity never speaks for self. All mythology relies solely on faith in the men who speak on behalf of a deity.

@@whatshatnin4572 Christ speaks plenty of doctrines never before recorded in scripture. He did both. He sometimes quoted scripture and sometimes spoke His own words. My point was simply that Christ made it clear that his followers should be beholden to both his words and the words of ancient prophets. Dan's argument might be semantically correct, but it completely ignores the established pattern of Christ's utterances.

Who's dealing in faith? We come for data on this channel.

@@mrdevonscook What words do we have spoken by Jesus? Where is the literature? I dont know that we have any utterances from Christ. Man speaks for Christ. Thomas, Marry and even Judas have their own gospels. Paul has his own literature as well but we dont have anything composed by Jesus. Before we speak on the utterances of Jesus, let us find literature that was actually authored by Jesus. If not then we must talk about the men who speak on behalf of Jesus which is common when dealing with mythology

@@whatshatnin4572 With this attitude we have no history at all. In order to get any value from the past, you have to trust the people who lived it. If all these authors are liars, then we could argue that everyone who ever wrote anything (except those who wrote only about their own ideas--a questionable exception indeed) is a liar. This is a razed-earth view of history that invalidates the entire project of understanding our past.