Give me a proper scholar over an apologist any day. I say this as a Christian.
@Theprofessorator11 ай бұрын
I run into this a lot with apologetics where they just refuse to have their feet held to the fire. I don't know what it is, but they just have to start reinterpreting what you said. Every. Single. Time. Kudos to you Dan for keeping the gas going under this guy, I don't have the patience anymore. Its a hard stop for me these days when people try to get me to say something.
@rotag-itsni11 ай бұрын
Confidently incorrect apologists might just be the funniest breed of humans 😂
@spinnwebe_11 ай бұрын
allow me to introduce you to “flat earthers”
@andrewjarvis694211 ай бұрын
There is nothing better than the combo of being absolutely confident and totally wrong.
@KaiHenningsen11 ай бұрын
@@andrewjarvis6942Very much depends on how much of a stake you personally have on the outcome.
@cinnamondan498411 ай бұрын
Was thinking the same
@Wandering_Vet6 ай бұрын
So all of them?
@carlasmith909311 ай бұрын
Gotta love the knowing smirk accompanied by "let's see it" when you know you have the facts to back you up 😂
@nyralotep11 ай бұрын
Why do people think they are smarter than actual scholars just because they can google something? Dan is careful with his wording for a reason.
@KaiHenningsen11 ай бұрын
Do they even *know* he's an actual scholar?
@DoloresLehmann11 ай бұрын
@@KaiHenningsen I guess they don't care. They just think anyone who doesn't agree with them can't be correct.
@icollectstories57024 ай бұрын
Because God is on their side. This allows them to be just as Arrogant.
@JeffPom11 ай бұрын
I am a lay licensed pastor of a church. Even I, with limited education at best, can see the holes in their defense. So many problems.
@spinnwebe_11 ай бұрын
Yeah but what about these?? In genesis 15:1: “word” In genesis 2:22: “of” In deuteronomy 7:6: “God” CHECKMATE
@bristolrovers2711 ай бұрын
You are officially my guru 😂😂😂😂😂
@Aldrnari95611 ай бұрын
Flawless rhetoric. Indeed, your argument must be divinely inspired😂
@digitaljanus11 ай бұрын
Bonus points if you thrust a sharp implement through your Bible and pierced those exact words---"THE CODE UNLOCKED!"
@rainbowkrampus11 ай бұрын
@@digitaljanus Pierced with, say... a railroad spike? If you used a pocket Bible, your odds of hitting all the words goes up dramatically.
@20quid11 ай бұрын
The Bible being inerrant because the Bible says it is inerrant is the classic example of circular logic. If someone says they always tell the truth then they can't possibly be lying about always telling the truth because they just told you that they always tell the truth.
@lizekamtombe222311 ай бұрын
But the bible says that the unbelievers will scorn the bible. The se ond thing you say in your con.
@Mrballerize11 ай бұрын
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.
@lde-m868811 ай бұрын
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?
@rainbowkrampus11 ай бұрын
@@lde-m8688 "Jesus took the wheel, therefore, I am not at fault."
@mielipuolisiili724010 ай бұрын
The debate here is specifically about what Bible says, not wether it's true, so that's besides the point.
@archivist1711 ай бұрын
It's interesting to see the disingenuity of those trying to argue against the evidence. Sidestepping the question, and making further overblown claims.
@philswaim39211 ай бұрын
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
@huttj50911 ай бұрын
@@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.
@rainbowkrampus11 ай бұрын
@@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.
@lde-m868811 ай бұрын
I love how people who do not know these languages argue this stuff. It's just a symptom of a larger problem in our society, really.
@Dalekzilla11 ай бұрын
It frustrates them so that The Bible doesn't say exactly what they need it to say...that they have to twist and bend and "interpret" scripture to fit their agenda. What they really need is a time machine so they can go back and write their own "perfect" version....which would say in great big letters "GOD WROTE EVERY SINGLE WORD".
@flowingafterglow62911 ай бұрын
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.
@talkofchrist11 ай бұрын
"and the Bible is all God ever wrote and it's all he will ever write or say"
@juanausensi49911 ай бұрын
@@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.
@boboak916811 ай бұрын
2:33 EVERY prophecy is a matter of human interpretation. Only humans are writing them and only humans are reading them. Who does Peter think is going to interpret that bunk? Punxsutawney Phil?
@talkofchrist11 ай бұрын
The "Word of God" is everything God ever spoke, including the words he spoke in the Divine Council, during the Creation of the universe and the Earth, and everything he's ever said from then until now, and it is not equated with or limited to the Bible, which is a collection of a few words written by humans and gathered together a few centuries after the death of Jesus. It's as if a biographer wrote a very short book about the life of Jimmy Carter, and people began to claim that the book contained and was equivalent to all the words of the former President.
@nedsantos141511 ай бұрын
It is extremely exhausting to deal with, as an academic, the biblical propagandists and biblical literalists.
@Matt_The_Hugenot11 ай бұрын
These apologists have rote learned answers and use them when they don't actually fit the question.
@stormlord198411 ай бұрын
Very succinctly put. Thank you for enlightening us!
@ngw0311 ай бұрын
But why is the background of his video the Wilkinson Center?
@dinocollins72011 ай бұрын
Yes why? lol
@jordancasti11o3 ай бұрын
I was wondering the same 😂
@Jeewanu2169 ай бұрын
I doubt you'll come across this, but I want you to know Dan, that even as an atheist newly deconverted, it is a breath of fresh air to find someone who is critically thinking about the Bible and the things written therein. As long as people don't use the Bible to justify horrible acts, I don't really have an issue with any one following it. With that as my pre statement, I want to let you know that I will be recommending your channel to all of my religious family members for no reason other than to help them learn their faith better. I think Christianity evaluated critically, like you do, is a force for very great positive change in this world.
@danieldelanoche201511 ай бұрын
Thanks for making the content you do, Dan! This (calling the Bible the word of god/scripture) is one of my biggest pet peeves.
@QuinnPrice11 ай бұрын
I'm glad the creator didn't stoop to personal attacks (ad hominem). His arguments don't hold water. These are common evangelical talking points that quickly fall apart with any scrutiny.
@PrometheanRising11 ай бұрын
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.
@WORDSMITHBERGER11 ай бұрын
A few other problems... Firstly, even if the Old Testament were accepted as a singular corpus, 2 Timothy 3:16 obviously cannot refer to the Bible _as a whole_ because the *New* Testament definitely had not been canonized. Secondly, and crucially, 2 Timothy 3:16 certainly wasn't self-referential; therefore, if we cannot substantiate the veracity of 2 Timothy 3:16, we cannot _use_ 2 Timothy 3:16 to substantiate the veracity of anything else. Thirdly, if we even if we agree that the text is supposed to mean that the Scriptures are inspired by God, we have no justification for the idea that divine inspiration supercedes free will and/or human fallibility. Finally, if we _do_ assume that divine inspiration supercedes free will and human fallibility under the pretense that the human authors wrote *exactly* what God wanted them to write, we cannot then use the human authors' unique perspectives to reconcile any perceived contradictions, discrepancies, errors, or inconsistencies. That line of argumentation only works if the authors _weren't_ essentially taking God's dictation; and that opens the door to fallibility.
@gennie47799 ай бұрын
It's always been weird to me when people say that. When they wrote that it was just a letter. Scripture was the 5 books of the Old Testament probably. Seems obvious but idk.
@GuyShōtō10 ай бұрын
When he drops the alright let's see it, you know it's game over for the apologist.
@ritawing106411 ай бұрын
❤ proper use of"begging the question" ❤. (I know the new one is accepted, but it never sounds right).
@spinnwebe_11 ай бұрын
I could never get that correct. What’s the right usage?
@ritawing106411 ай бұрын
@@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!
@scambammer610211 ай бұрын
@@ritawing1064 begging the question means circular reasoning. anyone who uses it as just raising a question is a moron.
@chuckshingledecker221611 ай бұрын
It’s such an odd claim for someone who claims to be a traditional Christian to argue that Jesus claimed some texts are the “word of God” when traditional Christianity teaches that JESUS is the Word of God incarnate. The old adage, the text points to Jesus not Jesus to the text is something this creator seems to haven’t heard before. Thanks for another great video.
@BradyPostma11 ай бұрын
Anciently, they made more distinction between the spoken word and the written word. Today, we more often blur that line. We say that people "said so in a text," for example, even though texts are written and not spoken. Is this perhaps because writing was more of a novelty back then? Speaking was ubiquitous, but perhaps writing was not so it was more often treated as unique and distinct.
@scambammer610211 ай бұрын
except the argument here is that spoken words were more "inspired" than written words. your point doesn't explain that.
@BradyPostma11 ай бұрын
@@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.
@pansepot149011 ай бұрын
@@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.”
@iamfiefo8 ай бұрын
Also, just because something was "inspired" by something, that doesn't mean it is "directly from" the thing.
@scambammer610211 ай бұрын
yeah he straw manned Dan's argument. Also, there's no reason to believe anything written in the Bible at all. IF it said what the apologist claims, that still wouldn't be any reason to believe it's true. If I said "everything I say is divinely inspired" would you believe me? Of course not. So why would you believe some anonymous writer from 2000 years ago who says it?
@thundercatt526511 ай бұрын
Rhetoric indeed. ...some get upset when they can't manipulate you with their tools of oppression and beliefs in their false God.... they have found comfort in...just keep pushing forward
@ChrisRobison11 ай бұрын
Is it just me or is that creator's background image of BYU campus? Is this creator LDS?
@JennyMcBride1411 ай бұрын
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.
@scambammer610211 ай бұрын
@@JennyMcBride14 he is LDS
@dinocollins72011 ай бұрын
@@scambammer6102 Really who is the creator? I was wondering the same thing
@jordancasti11o3 ай бұрын
I assumed it was because Dan is a BYU alumni but I could be wrong
@1926jqg11 ай бұрын
I love that BYU is the background....
@dinocollins72011 ай бұрын
Yeah why is that a thing? lol
@20quid11 ай бұрын
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.
@Outspoken.Humanist11 ай бұрын
I have encountered this argument many times and, lacking Dan's erudition and knowledge, my answer is more simple and direct. It is invalid to attempt to prove the Bible is the word of God by quoting the Bible. I have my own book and in it I could easily have written that I know my words are true because the universe told me to write them. When reading those words, would anyone be convinced? Of course not. Any author is free to write anything but simply claiming the words to be true is not enough. Nor is referring to the belief of others. The Quran repeatedly (to the point of boredom) announces that it is the word of God but I'm reasonably sure this creator would ot simply accept that assertion.
@shygeist4 ай бұрын
How dan explains things is my customer service spirit animal
@chadstroman332511 ай бұрын
It's a minute distinction with huge repercussions that does need to be clarified. The bible "is the word of God" vs. the bible "contains the word of God" The former's repercussions cause the "inerrancy" belief to be adopted of necessity while the later would give adherents the space to renegotiate with the text when controversies of doctrine, belief or practice arise. It also requires less black and white thinking and more critical thinking with an open mind. It's also illustrated by the difference between claiming the Bible is what God is saying and the Bible's authors claiming what they recorded/remembered God saying.
@underthelidar11 ай бұрын
To someone in the position of an apologist, this might seem pedantic. For me it has helped me understand the word of God in a far more deep and rich way. Everything written is in debate with everything else. They don’t provide a consistent message throughout and they don’t need to. Context matters. We can engage in the word of God ourselves with good faith dialogue, rather than dogmatic pure reference arguments.
@scambammer610211 ай бұрын
if you don't believe all of it there's no reason to believe any of it
@ChrisRobison11 ай бұрын
@@scambammer6102 Why is that the case? That's essentially throwing the baby out with the bath water.
@scambammer610211 ай бұрын
@@ChrisRobison because there's no reasonable basis to distinguish different parts of the Bible as "divinely inspired" or not. It's all bath water.
@jenniferhunter407411 ай бұрын
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.)
@ChrisRobison11 ай бұрын
@@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.
@RustyWalker11 ай бұрын
Going all the way back to Moses is a bit of a blunder, given not only that virtually none of the Bible had been written at all, but also it doesn't look a whole lot like Moses actually wrote anything, and that's if there was any Moses of history that corresponds with the character of Moses presented in the stories in any shape or form.
@pattyyung11 ай бұрын
Obviously this is not a scholarly comment, but I want to know why that guy has the BYU Wilkinson Center as a background.
@dinocollins72011 ай бұрын
Me too!!! He's not LDS right? I was trying to figure out who he is lol
@lauralandon742911 ай бұрын
Yesss I knew somebody had to be talking about this haha
@20quid11 ай бұрын
Dan went to BYU as an undergrad, so I think its the creator's attempt to play the man instead of the ball.
@gromit199611 ай бұрын
Wouldn’t the Scriptures only apply to the Hebrew Bible? It is used today to refer to all the New Testament as well when at that point they weren’t being self referential , imo.
@tchristianphoto9 ай бұрын
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.
@GhostGXr3 ай бұрын
Despite my appreciation of the constructive criticism and clarity Dan brings to the table, he comes across like he has a devil's advocate complex. And, though it is helpful to all other theists as it promotes intellectual self-reflection and accuracy as well resistance, Dan's delivery is seemingly disingenuous and suspect, which most likely is related with his own creative flare for content purposes as well as a strategy for grabbing attention.
@aleczemouli29058 ай бұрын
Something we can all agree on, is that the authors of Mark, Peter and Timothy were all referring to the OT as scriptures, not the NT since it did not exist yet. So IF something was "God breathed ", in their eyes, it would be the OT alone (by default).
@pikachu774811 ай бұрын
Question: why does Deuteronomy 18 condemn occult practices? Were there any political or cultural reasons behind that?
@juanausensi49911 ай бұрын
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.
@rainbowkrampus11 ай бұрын
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.
@samfranck21196 ай бұрын
In the context of “Word“ = message: I find it interesting that Hebrew davar (word) and medaber (to speak) have the same root consonants (d-v-r). Maybe you could also translate “the utterance of God“ at times?
@AMoniqueOcampo11 ай бұрын
Please remember to include captions!
@DamBlairFam8 ай бұрын
Respectfully, You are making a valid distinction to people who can’t understand what you are trying to communicate. Most of them can’t distinguish between: A- “I don’t believe ___ exists.” B- “I believe ____ does not exist.” Your point is lost on them.
@amandabartlett874910 ай бұрын
So #1 all scripture is basically apocrypha; #2 canon excludes much apocrypha or prophecy, so witness is normally incomplete; #3 negotiation of texts is watered-down manner of speaking of power or social interpretation. What is true is what is institutionally powerful.
@angreehulk11 ай бұрын
🤘
@sheilaprice19429 ай бұрын
There’s a whole movement of Evangelical that I once was a part of, and I can tell you it’s hard to move those people into believing any other reasoning other than what the Bible says 🤷♀️😏
@UplandJones111 ай бұрын
This creator reminds me of a sock puppet
@spinnwebe_11 ай бұрын
It’s that glassy stare as he talks, I can’t get over it
@scambammer610211 ай бұрын
as opposed to the literal sock puppet Dan had on yesterday
@rehmeljl10 ай бұрын
lol!!!!!!! It's hysterical how basic these arguments are, opposing a literal biblical scholar.
@paulblack179911 ай бұрын
Right you are. The Bible is not the word of God; Jesus is the Word of God. And when that fails, Dan McClellan is the word of God 😅
@SimonDaumMusic11 ай бұрын
Some put Dogma over Data, just to be able to bend the Data to fit the Dogma, to then be able to shout out "see, the Data confirms our Dogma" :)
@abanks959110 ай бұрын
Amazing how ppl living completely diffrent lives/events etd 1000's of years ago can compel ppl to believe it has relevance to their lives today.
@Zahaqiel11 ай бұрын
I note he looks at the Greek translation of "God-breathed" but _doesn't_ look at the Greek translation of the word "scripture". If we follow this creator's utterly credulous method of reading 2 Timothy 3:16, the word "scripture" is the Greek word γραφὴ or graphē, which can mean drawing, painting, writing or description. _I guess all words are God-breathed now._ Problem solved.
@MalekMagicianPR11 ай бұрын
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? 😂😂
@Zahaqiel11 ай бұрын
@@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.
@digitaljanus11 ай бұрын
@@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.
@tchristianphoto9 ай бұрын
@@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.
@Zahaqiel9 ай бұрын
@@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.
@CharlesPayet11 ай бұрын
Such obtuseness almost seems like it has to be deliberate.
@Darisiabgal757311 ай бұрын
2 Timothy 3:16 "inspired by god" inspired by the writings of a forger. 2 Timothy is obviously psuedepigraphy. 2 Peter is a poor forgery Why is it that these christian, whenever they try to prove their case rely on the least authoritative texts?
@FaptainCalcon75011 ай бұрын
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.
@scambammer610211 ай бұрын
because none of the texts are authoritative. Paul was a nut job, and the gospels are fan fiction.
@Darisiabgal757311 ай бұрын
@@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.
@Darisiabgal757311 ай бұрын
@@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.
@scambammer610211 ай бұрын
@@Darisiabgal7573 none of it is "authoritative". paul has better provenance.
@FaptainCalcon75011 ай бұрын
I roll my eyes every time an apologist brings up 2 Timothy as defense for the Bible's inerrancy. Like, they're either completely ignorant of the scholarship surrounding Timothy, or just choose to go with *fringe* views that support their preconceived bias and intentions.
@scambammer610211 ай бұрын
there's no particular reason to think Paul knew what he was talking about either.
@josefpollard627110 ай бұрын
When God calls; I answer with: its your dime.
@jordancasti11o3 ай бұрын
Why is he in front of the Wilkinson center lol
@brycedyck845011 ай бұрын
They just make it up as they go😂
@Dave01Rhodes3 ай бұрын
Isn't 2 Peter also believed to have been written by someone else pretending to be Peter? And isn't the part referred to in the video part of a sort of apologist reframing of Jesus coming into power on the mountain as "the second coming" to claim Jesus wasn't wrong about saying the second coming would be within the lifetime of those hearing him say it?
@philsphan441411 ай бұрын
Howe do we know the Bible is free of error? The Bible says it is. What did people do for the first 300 years of Christianity with no Bibles?
@StevenWaling11 ай бұрын
Where does the bible say it's free of errors?
@marshlightning11 ай бұрын
I hate it people use the Bible to validate the Bible.
@dannyp54675 ай бұрын
"Overwhelming academic consensus.." 🐍
@PIA-tj5hcАй бұрын
These unlearned TikTokkers🙄
@christaylor222111 ай бұрын
Article of Faith # 8 ~ We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.
@sotl9711 ай бұрын
So please clarify. You are saying the Bible was inspried by God, but not the actual word of God? While I'm still confused, as I often am with You, Dan, I think I agree? Too often we place far too much emphasis on what we impose on the Bible, than what the Bible actually says and claims. This opens the Bible up to incorrect criticism where antagonists attack the impositions and not on the Bibles record itself. A great example of this is the atagonists attack of the creation story and traditional Christian Dogma that says it is litteral in the implied meaning. Espectially in the incorrect interpretation based on todays comminication and meaning.
@juanausensi49911 ай бұрын
Watch the video, then comment.
@hive_indicator3188 ай бұрын
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.
@izregistered8 ай бұрын
Wow, Dan loses the argument when he pulls out the air quotes. This is so stupid to be focused on the phrase “word of God” not being in or used specifically to describe what they obviously believed was given by God. This is just scholarly tail chasing.
@ChildofGod9876511 ай бұрын
Like Jesus I’m persecuted. I get hate for sharing my testimony PRAYERS ARE ALL I WANT. I want to give up because of all the hate I receive. But I TRUST YOU LORD I know this is the devil testing my faith! I will not waver. Thank you Jesus! Jesus please save us come soon I’m holding on and keeping faith. Waiting for the rapture. I keep faith even as I constantly struggle to provide for my kids and I constantly struggle to buy groceries. My husband is with you God. At times I feel so alone especially as a single mom. Since suffering a heart attack two years ago and my on going battle with lupus I’m overwhelmed. Both of my sons are autistic. I’m now homeschooling them so my hours to work are limited. Thankfully I have you Lord!The love of others have grown so cold. I know you will continue to provide you have this far. Faith over fear! Praise God and his son Yeshua! Hear my prayers.
@kalords596711 ай бұрын
Praying to imaginary God won't help you 😂😂😂
@exhumus11 ай бұрын
Doesn't the Bible say something about not praying in public? Maybe God is sending these persecutors to try to tell you something...
@matthewhansen212611 ай бұрын
Horrible ignorance
@jenna243111 ай бұрын
If you want to make the claim of the "Word of god" then you're now on the hook for the blatant contradictions.
@mrdevonscook11 ай бұрын
Dan is splitting the thinnest of hairs here. The difference between “Moses’ words” and “the written text containing them” is negligible in matters of faith. As the Son of God, Christ could have easily relied on his own authority in making doctrinal pronouncements, but He often quoted and referenced scripture instead. As a person of faith, when the Son of God asks “What is written in the law?” it’s not hard to infer that the written words of prophets are as binding as His own word.
@whatshatnin457211 ай бұрын
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.
@mrdevonscook11 ай бұрын
@@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.
@digitaljanus11 ай бұрын
Who's dealing in faith? We come for data on this channel.
@whatshatnin457211 ай бұрын
@@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
@mrdevonscook11 ай бұрын
@@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.
@Hegeleze11 ай бұрын
The normal rhetoric from danny. Boring, trite. Just because you can point out others are ignorant doesn't mean you have anything interesting to say. I can dunk a basketball on a child with the rim at 7ft too.