I first made the mistake of evaluating Bible contradictions through the lens of Bible apologists. I saw the least impact and controversial contradictions. After discovering the irreconcilable resurrection morning contradictions, I discovered many more that helped me see the Bible more for what it is; a collection of writings by various men.
It's much easier to explain the contradictions in the bible when you understand that it's a collection of stories written over the span of hundreds of years by separate people, and not a singular thing written by like, Stephen King. that doesn't *excuse* the contradictions in the Bible nor the beliefs of its followers, but it's just much easier to explain why they exist.
Everyone knows that. The problem is the dogma that the Bible is perfect, which means they have to find ways to make them all fit perfectly, despite differences in language, author, and time period
@@joshuaworkman1 Everyone knows that? Really? What about the dogma that dictates that the Bible is the perfect, infallible word of god, treating god as the author and not man? No, I believe you are mistaken in your assumption that "Everyone know that" and your approach will falter when faced with theist claims.
Often written in isolation, or with access to only a handful of prior texts, or the result of poor study of those prior texts, or with a goal of improving on them.
Most Christians never took the time to study antient cultures and languages in order to understand antient religion. Simply applying modern sensibilities and rationalizing to make it fit their narrative, which completely alters the original intent, culture and language.
I appreciate that at least the book says it ‘explains’ the contradictions instead of ‘debunking’ them or whatever other term they want to say there is no contradiction. Because no matter what explanation they give, there is still a contradiction. If one text says this on a subject and another text says that, they are by definition contradicting each other. You can come up with explanations as to how it’s possible for both to be accurate, but that still doesn’t change the fact that they are contradictory and any explanation you give is a unique, third description of the event that almost always contradicts both the original texts. This doesn’t necessarily mean that all 3 narratives can’t be accurate at the same time, but it still doesn’t get rid of the contradictions the way so many apologists act like they do.
We see here why so many Christians are poorly educated in their own holy book. Someone has printed out supposed explanations for contradictions without being able to engage with the text of the bible or the language in which it was written and they have created their own 'book' 😂 by photocopying pages and binding them. The creator of this video is impressed but is, again, clearly not able to do his own fact checking. It's kind of sad.
The book's author, Jacob Thornton, should have just explained that Matthew skips some people on purpose so that he could have 14 "generations" from David to the Exile (see Matthew 1:17).
These are ONLY explained to believers! The rest of us KNOW they are contradictions. I admit to a strong bias against Christian apologists, whatever they say I generally go in the opposite direction. Why? They are not in anyway interested in truth, only in questionably plausible answers to assuage the fears of believers.
I watched a show on history in which the narrsrator said that at one point, the Arabic world possessed some of the brightest minds in science and math. But then Muslim fundamentalist rulers took over and outlawed higher learning in those fields, in favor of study of the Qu'ran. The same thing is happening in the US with evangelical Christianity and Orthodox Judaism. The human race is regressing, thanks largely to religion.
Nah, not really. There's plenty of reason to keep up with any number of modern subjects. The Arabic world _at that time_ was studying science for entertainment and celebrity. Not really for advancement.
It's more complicated than that. Those advances in science and math by medieval Muslims were largely motivated by their religion in the first place. E.g. As the _Dar al-Islam_ (or more broadly, the Muslim cultural sphere) expanded across Eurasia and North Africa, there was a pressing need to identify the direction of Mecca from any place in the world so practicing Muslims could uphold their prayer obligation. Disciplines like astronomy, geography, and navigation were given societal support as a result. And that's why of the ~10,000 stars visible in the night sky without a telescope, the majority of them have Arabic-derived names. But it is definitely a threat to human understanding when religious authorities sabotage scholarship and learning in favour of regressive culture war nonsense to structure power.
@digitaljanus The show described it differently. It claimed that Muslim scientists and thinkers saw no contradiction between the seeking of knowledge and their religious beliefs. They thought it was only right to want to learn and understand Allah's creations. My point was to show how fundamentalist religious belief sees knowledge, especially scientific knowledge, as the enemy to its continued existence, influence, power, authority and clout. And so that knowledge is portrayed as misguided at best, and Satanic at worst.
One can drum up all sorts of ways to reconcile conflicting passages, of one simply ignores the multiple times that the text explicitly prohibits doing that.
I think it's based on the need to have something Divine, that is 'perfect' or 'flawless' , but we tend to forget the 'human factor' involved in all of this. 😅 But yeah, I'm with you, presuppose univocality it's not a healthy approach to the text.
This isn't about religion. It's an attempt to structure power (as Dan has put it) by providing an unchallengeable source text, typically the heavily flawed KJV, _along with_ the US Constitution and Bill of Rights. All documents are then erroneously applied through a modern lens to the present day. When they do this, they're not trying to convince you. They're floating their understanding for all to see, but particularly for the courts to see. And the majority of the US Supreme Court is of this originalist bent. This particular example is an attempt to float the idea of inerrancy, which is then used to help prop up more egregious flaws, while also looking down his snoot at the Muslim who wrote the list of contradictions, who doesn't even have to be a real person.
Oh I get. Because if you admit the bible isn't perfect and might have mistakes, then it begs the question of, are there other mistakes? If Matthew was wrong for the father of Uzziah, then how do you know that Luke wasn't wrong when he said Jesus rose from the dead?
*Solution worse than “contradiction”* 🦇 My favorite is the bat-is-bird issue. The translation effectively says “bats and other birds.” The Hebrew probably meant “bats and other fliers.” But this solution makes things worse for apologists, because it means the supposed creator of bats and birds saw them only superficially - by how and where they travel.
The idea that one would even need to defend the written word of an omniscient, all-powerful being is mind boggling. Is the title of that pamphlet, “Here’s how you try to make this nonsense make sense to other people”?
Said by someone who clearly has the exact same superstitious, idolatrous presuppositions about what "the Bible" is supposed to be and where it came from as the fundamentalists they are trying to mock.
@@byrondickens What a bizarre thing to say. Okay, let’s go back a step then. What superstitious, idolatrous presuppositions do I clearly have about the bible?
A proper website for Bible contradictions. *"Contradictions in the Bible | Identified verse by verse and explained using the most up-to-date scholarly information about the Bible, its texts, and the men who wrote them"* -- by Dr. Steven DiMattei
You can explain most of the contradictions, perhaps all of them, very easily. They're contradictions. Simple. Once you get past that, you can stop treating the book as a sacred text written or dictated by god, and see it for what it is; a collection of incredible stories, written over centuries by people who never met one another.
Depends on whether scribal modifications count. And which translation you're looking at. Far more than hundreds made some change to some manuscript. We can only look at the discrepancies within the texts and between texts. Certainly Matthew, Luke, and John weren't the only writers to change a text for their own purposes.
Isn’t it generally accepted that Matthew *intentionally* omitted certain generations to arrive at his 14-14-14 schema? The structure of the genealogy not only offers an effective mnemonic, but also appears to employ gematria, as 14 corresponds to the numerical value of David’s name (Dalet = 4; Vav = 6; Dalet = 4). So do we really have a contradiction here, or are we just taking this genealogy more literally than its author intended?
I kinda like that. It's ironically treating Matthew like an apologetic writing similar to the "101 Bible Contradictions Explained" booklet! "If someone challenges/wants to know Jesus' lineage back to David, here's how to answer them" without requiring the answer to be a perfect one, just good enough to make the objection go away
21 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา +2
how is that not a contradiction? the motive doesn't matter.
In his commentary on Matthew, New Testament scholar D.A. Carson asserts that “It was customary among Jewish writers to arrange genealogies according to some convenient scheme, possibly for mnemonic reasons” (Matthew, The Expositor's Bible Commentary, pg. 241). In other words, the author of Matthew, in omitting certain generations from his genealogy of Jesus, would have simply been conforming to what was (at his time) an accepted literary convention--one that he would have expected his first-century Jewish audience to recognize and appreciate. So of course motive matters! A respectable interpretation of any textual work must take into account the rhetorical goals and motives of its author(s)--not to mention its genre, intended audience, and surrounding sociocultural context (among other things). To do otherwise is simply to engage in bad exegesis, as any respectable biblical scholar (Dan McClellan included) would readily affirm. A contradiction (in any meaningful sense of the word) only arises when we impose a strictly literal reading of the genealogy--a reading that its author plausibly never even intended.
19 ชั่วโมงที่ผ่านมา +2
@@tuamigogringo7136 lol the words on the page are literally a contradiction. I don't care about apologetics or guesses about who might have meant what.
@@tuamigogringo7136 1. The author was not jewish 2. The author was Gentile writing in Greek and not an eyewitness of Jesus 3. The author just made stuff up, as many around the time did. E.g. GMat copied and changed GMark. Gluke did the same. Literally hundreds of writings in the first three centuries did
My grandfather is a right wing authoritarian, and you wouldn't believe how he negotiates with the Bible, I mean wow. I keep sending him Dan's videos so he can be re-educated but grandpa says he refuses to watch unbiased videos (smh). And Dan's videos are obviously like the most unbiased videos in the world, so anyway please pray that God will send Their blessings upon my grandpa to soften his heart. Thanks guys 🙏
that's unfair and a cheap shot, Dan. Matthew's genealogy taken literally is incorrect possibly in several places. Matthew's point is not to be literally correct, it's to trace the right to the throne, often tweaking generations to fit a certain numerical pattern.
Getting their knickers all twisted up about contradictions is a penalty that biblical literalists inflict upon themself. If your belief universe proceeds on the assumption that the Bible is infallible then you have an unsolvable problem trying to resolve them (just look at the variation in the accounts of the resurrection for example). I'm not religious in any way, but there are much more nuanced and useful approaches to the text that even faithful religious people can take that don't require the silliness that those who profess biblical inerrancy are stuck with.
I'm a practicing Buddhist. I follow this channel because I am so impressed by Dan's vast knowledge of the subject and his ability to remember so many facts. And in different languages too! He's a real smarty!
His personality is abrasive and his videos mean-spirited, so he's not likely to get a lot of subs here unless he can magically add charisma to his personality.
Why even defend the Bible? Believe it or dont. But this defending just produces more Atheists then Richard Dawkins. Cause people will look at your bullshit, doubt it and then find other things to doubt. Instead spend that time beeing a good person instead of a hypocrite.
Dan, you know this is a fringe take based on…dictionaries definitions of one word? Compressing genealogies was a common practice. You don’t have to agree with the position to represent it fairly. “Pedestrian attempt”? Do better.
@ it was a cheap shot, and a bad one, at a creator who wasn’t attacking anyone. Dan is incredibly clever, but in this one he was lazy and needlessly demeaning.
The same word (G1080) is also used in John 8:41 when the priests are defending their ancestral roots to Abraham ("we are not illegitimate children"). Abraham lived thousands of years before this took place. Jesus used a related word (G1081) when he called the scribes and pharisees "a brood/generation of vipers". So I guess, according to Dan, their parents were vipers? "Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets. Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers. Ye serpents, ye generation (G1081)of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell? Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city: That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar" (Matthew 23:31-35)
How distinguishing between the pre-Babylonian captivity definitions of El (God) and Elohim (sons/beings of El) versus the post-captivity syncretized definitions could resolve contradictions and cast the Yahweh figure of Genesis 2-3 in a very different light from the transcendent Elohim portrayed in Genesis 1. Pre-Captivity Definitions: In this framework, the supreme creator deity is simply referred to as El - God. The Elohim are understood as a pantheon or "sons of El" - lesser divine beings subordinate to El. This aligns with ancient Canaanite and older Israelite religious conceptions. Under these definitions, the Genesis 1 account would refer to the transcendent El as the prime creator, with the Elohim (plural) potentially being celestial forces/angels enacting aspects of the creation. The Ruach Elohim (Spirit/Breath of the divine beings) hovering over the primordial waters connects to surviving traces of this worldview. Crucially, this allows one to separate the Elohim of Genesis 1 from the distinct Yahweh Elohim first appearing in Genesis 2 to form man from the dust. Based on references like Deuteronomy 32:8-9, the pre-captivity perspective viewed Yahweh as one of the sons of El (an Elohim) rather than conflating him with El itself. This de-syncretization casts Yahweh as a separate, lesser, more anthropomorphic deity associated with the ancient Israelites - perhaps retained from their Canaanite heritage. His behavior and commandments in Genesis 2-3 and elsewhere in the Torah would then represent the teachings of this tribal desert deity, not the supreme metaphysical creator El. The Garden Scenario Reframed From this vantage point, the events of Genesis 2-3 can be interpreted not as ordained by the most high El creator, but rather as humanity's initial tragic entrapment by the lesser devolved being Yahweh within his constructed realm of mortality, suffering, and cosmic privation. Yahweh's wrathful conduct, his placing of humans under a yoke of commandments, his expulsion from Eden's paradisiacal environment, and the subsequent violent legacy of his covenants and laws all derive from the subjugating delusions and stunted, anthropocentric conception of this finite Elohim - not the infinite plenitude of the supreme El. Contradictions Resolved Separating El from Yahweh along the pre-captivity definitional lines could resolve contradictions in several important ways: 1) It distinguishes the transcendent, metaphysically profound cosmic creator portrayed in Genesis 1 from the all-too-human tribal deity of the remaining Torah material. 2) It allows for a reframing of the Torah's teachings around blood sacrifice, ethnic conflicts, law codes, etc. as the cultural mythological traditions of ancient Israelite history rather than attributed to the most high El itself. 3) It creates space for the Christ figure of the New Testament to represent a re-emergence of the supreme El's sovereignty and universal spiritual path - overriding the outdated covenants, ethnic segregations, and violent subjugations prescribed by the lesser Yahweh consciousness. 4) Humanity's existential struggling, our proclivity towards violence/evil, and our fundamental state of cosmic imprisonment can be metaphysically associated with the fallout of our ancient reunion from Yahweh's corrupted influence rather than the designs of the supreme El consciousness. 5) Competing depictions of the divine across different books (wrathful/peaceful, loving/cruel, spiritual/legalistic) can be added to different nodes of the El vs. Yahweh consciousness schisms. While still requiring some nuanced interpretation, this delineation allows for a coherent reintegration of Old and New Testament perspectives under a broader metaphysical framework. It preserves the universal spiritual integrity of the highest Creator from the cultural mythological contexts surrounding the more finite tribal deity Yahweh. By embracing the pre-syncretized definitions and recognizing the conflation of El and Yahweh as a later imposition, one can reconnect with deep streams of ancient Hebrew theological diversity. This presents an intellectually robust path for understanding the unified trajectory of the biblical texts as exploring a single universetheological consciousness's reassertion over more contingent, anthropomorphized deviations and exiles. Exodus 15 Names of God Bible 2 Yah is my strength and my song. He is my Savior. This is my El, and I will praise him, my father’s Elohim, and I will honor him. 🤔 🤔 🤔
You contradict scripture. You break scripture. You nullify scripture. You deny scripture. You don't believe in scripture. Be bold about your beliefs and put it on a sweatshirt, "I argue scripture" "I contradict scripture" "There is no scripture" "Im a homosexual" "Intellect is truth" "Marvel better"
Actually the T shirts I want to see would read.....I Call Myself a Christian But Hate Migrants, Even After Christ Told Me To Care for Them....or I Admire Rich People And See Nothing Wrong in Being Rich, in Spite of What Christ Said About the Rich....or I like to Judge Others, Now If I Could Just Get Rid of James 4:11-12, Romans 14:10, John 8:7, and Matthew 7:1-5. THOSE would be great T shirts.
Dan you should write your own book 101 Bible contradictions explained explained 😂
I think he did. It'll be released next spring
@@veggiet2009 already pre-purchased it
I first made the mistake of evaluating Bible contradictions through the lens of Bible apologists. I saw the least impact and controversial contradictions. After discovering the irreconcilable resurrection morning contradictions, I discovered many more that helped me see the Bible more for what it is; a collection of writings by various men.
"Nah I'm good" covers most myth for me. We've been drowning in word salad for millennia demonstrated perfectly.
It's the McDonald's translation that has ground my gears to dust.
It's much easier to explain the contradictions in the bible when you understand that it's a collection of stories written over the span of hundreds of years by separate people, and not a singular thing written by like, Stephen King.
that doesn't *excuse* the contradictions in the Bible nor the beliefs of its followers, but it's just much easier to explain why they exist.
Everyone knows that. The problem is the dogma that the Bible is perfect, which means they have to find ways to make them all fit perfectly, despite differences in language, author, and time period
@@joshuaworkman1 Everyone knows that? Really? What about the dogma that dictates that the Bible is the perfect, infallible word of god, treating god as the author and not man?
No, I believe you are mistaken in your assumption that "Everyone know that" and your approach will falter when faced with theist claims.
Often written in isolation, or with access to only a handful of prior texts, or the result of poor study of those prior texts, or with a goal of improving on them.
@@FeliciaByNature that is exactly what brother Joshua just said 😅
Atheism helped me understand the Bible way better than the Holy Spirit ever did.
yeah- because all the best books come bound in plastic binding combs....
and yes - I did have to just look up what they're called.
You would think a Bible, which should be "flawless", wouldn't need a companion _buuk_ to explain why it's "flawless".
Did you say buuk because that is how he said it?
@ChaZ-cp6qw Yep. Pretty much.
Most Christians never took the time to study antient cultures and languages in order to understand antient religion. Simply applying modern sensibilities and rationalizing to make it fit their narrative, which completely alters the original intent, culture and language.
Main character syndrome.
Terima kasih.
I was impressed by the donation and then I looked it up on Google: About $1.26! Still appreciated though.
I appreciate that at least the book says it ‘explains’ the contradictions instead of ‘debunking’ them or whatever other term they want to say there is no contradiction. Because no matter what explanation they give, there is still a contradiction. If one text says this on a subject and another text says that, they are by definition contradicting each other. You can come up with explanations as to how it’s possible for both to be accurate, but that still doesn’t change the fact that they are contradictory and any explanation you give is a unique, third description of the event that almost always contradicts both the original texts. This doesn’t necessarily mean that all 3 narratives can’t be accurate at the same time, but it still doesn’t get rid of the contradictions the way so many apologists act like they do.
That's a high-quality publication right there. Really inspires confidence.
@@user-gk9lg5sp4y /sarc
The sequel, 101 Favorite Church Recipes, is much better.
We see here why so many Christians are poorly educated in their own holy book. Someone has printed out supposed explanations for contradictions without being able to engage with the text of the bible or the language in which it was written and they have created their own 'book' 😂 by photocopying pages and binding them. The creator of this video is impressed but is, again, clearly not able to do his own fact checking.
It's kind of sad.
What's up with the cover of the booklet? 🤔
I'm glad Dan is finally calling out Lil Uzziah Vert for being contradictory.
Thanks Dan. ❤
Maybe Joram performed the magic ritual to create Uzziah ab nihilo.
Wait, he believes the New Testament was written in Hebrew?
Poor Matt,
They are still taking about the times he screwed up ;)
Why don't they just go ‘Give him a break! He was doing this from memory!’?
@@creamwobbly bc then they’re forced to concede that it wasn’t divinely inspired
@@vibz8346 and then the zombies would look silly
The book's author, Jacob Thornton, should have just explained that Matthew skips some people on purpose so that he could have 14 "generations" from David to the Exile (see Matthew 1:17).
Yeah but then he’d be explaining why Mathew got it ‘wrong’ and he can’t do that
And even then there's only 13 in one of his groups. Matthew was rather sloppy.
These are ONLY explained to believers! The rest of us KNOW they are contradictions. I admit to a strong bias against Christian apologists, whatever they say I generally go in the opposite direction. Why? They are not in anyway interested in truth, only in questionably plausible answers to assuage the fears of believers.
I watched a show on history in which the narrsrator said that at one point, the Arabic world possessed some of the brightest minds in science and math.
But then Muslim fundamentalist rulers took over and outlawed higher learning in those fields, in favor of study of the Qu'ran. The same thing is happening in the US with evangelical Christianity and Orthodox Judaism.
The human race is regressing, thanks largely to religion.
Sadly, true.
Nah, not really. There's plenty of reason to keep up with any number of modern subjects. The Arabic world _at that time_ was studying science for entertainment and celebrity. Not really for advancement.
It's more complicated than that. Those advances in science and math by medieval Muslims were largely motivated by their religion in the first place. E.g. As the _Dar al-Islam_ (or more broadly, the Muslim cultural sphere) expanded across Eurasia and North Africa, there was a pressing need to identify the direction of Mecca from any place in the world so practicing Muslims could uphold their prayer obligation. Disciplines like astronomy, geography, and navigation were given societal support as a result. And that's why of the ~10,000 stars visible in the night sky without a telescope, the majority of them have Arabic-derived names. But it is definitely a threat to human understanding when religious authorities sabotage scholarship and learning in favour of regressive culture war nonsense to structure power.
@digitaljanus The show described it differently. It claimed that Muslim scientists and thinkers saw no contradiction between the seeking of knowledge and their religious beliefs. They thought it was only right to want to learn and understand Allah's creations.
My point was to show how fundamentalist religious belief sees knowledge, especially scientific knowledge, as the enemy to its continued existence, influence, power, authority and clout. And so that knowledge is portrayed as misguided at best, and Satanic at worst.
I'm no historian but I'm sure the downfall of the Arab world as an epitome of knowledge began with the siege of Baghdad.
❤❤❤❤❤❤thanks Dan!!!
One can drum up all sorts of ways to reconcile conflicting passages, of one simply ignores the multiple times that the text explicitly prohibits doing that.
I have never understood the need to treat the Bible as an idol, that it has to be flawless, in order to be useful.
I think it's based on the need to have something Divine, that is 'perfect' or 'flawless' , but we tend to forget the 'human factor' involved in all of this. 😅 But yeah, I'm with you, presuppose univocality it's not a healthy approach to the text.
This isn't about religion. It's an attempt to structure power (as Dan has put it) by providing an unchallengeable source text, typically the heavily flawed KJV, _along with_ the US Constitution and Bill of Rights. All documents are then erroneously applied through a modern lens to the present day.
When they do this, they're not trying to convince you. They're floating their understanding for all to see, but particularly for the courts to see. And the majority of the US Supreme Court is of this originalist bent.
This particular example is an attempt to float the idea of inerrancy, which is then used to help prop up more egregious flaws, while also looking down his snoot at the Muslim who wrote the list of contradictions, who doesn't even have to be a real person.
@@melodygn Makes sense. I suppose one tries to see God in the Bible, so they assume the Bible must be without flaws.
Oh I get. Because if you admit the bible isn't perfect and might have mistakes, then it begs the question of, are there other mistakes?
If Matthew was wrong for the father of Uzziah, then how do you know that Luke wasn't wrong when he said Jesus rose from the dead?
@@creamwobbly I forget how powerful the need to feel morally superior is. Thank you for the reminder!
*Solution worse than “contradiction”* 🦇
My favorite is the bat-is-bird issue.
The translation effectively says “bats and other birds.” The Hebrew probably meant “bats and other fliers.”
But this solution makes things worse for apologists, because it means the supposed creator of bats and birds saw them only superficially - by how and where they travel.
The idea that one would even need to defend the written word of an omniscient, all-powerful being is mind boggling. Is the title of that pamphlet, “Here’s how you try to make this nonsense make sense to other people”?
Said by someone who clearly has the exact same superstitious, idolatrous presuppositions about what "the Bible" is supposed to be and where it came from as the fundamentalists they are trying to mock.
@ I think that the bible is a work of fiction. Is that what you ‘clearly’ read?
@@karmachameleon326 Said by someone who clearly doesn't understand that mythology/ legend is not the same thing as fiction.
@@byrondickens What a bizarre thing to say. Okay, let’s go back a step then. What superstitious, idolatrous presuppositions do I clearly have about the bible?
A proper website for Bible contradictions.
*"Contradictions in the Bible | Identified verse by verse and explained using the most up-to-date scholarly information about the Bible, its texts, and the men who wrote them"* -- by Dr. Steven DiMattei
The real exciting grammatical revelation here is that there's a creator on TH-cam who understands the difference between who and whom
Are there actual people that get quizzed on random Bible facts to justify this book?!
You can explain most of the contradictions, perhaps all of them, very easily. They're contradictions. Simple. Once you get past that, you can stop treating the book as a sacred text written or dictated by god, and see it for what it is; a collection of incredible stories, written over centuries by people who never met one another.
😂😂 nah I'm good 😂😂
Hey Dan how many people wrote or added their two cents to the creation of the Bible? I heard it was hundreds.
Depends on whether scribal modifications count. And which translation you're looking at. Far more than hundreds made some change to some manuscript. We can only look at the discrepancies within the texts and between texts. Certainly Matthew, Luke, and John weren't the only writers to change a text for their own purposes.
Isn’t it generally accepted that Matthew *intentionally* omitted certain generations to arrive at his 14-14-14 schema? The structure of the genealogy not only offers an effective mnemonic, but also appears to employ gematria, as 14 corresponds to the numerical value of David’s name (Dalet = 4; Vav = 6; Dalet = 4).
So do we really have a contradiction here, or are we just taking this genealogy more literally than its author intended?
I kinda like that. It's ironically treating Matthew like an apologetic writing similar to the "101 Bible Contradictions Explained" booklet!
"If someone challenges/wants to know Jesus' lineage back to David, here's how to answer them" without requiring the answer to be a perfect one, just good enough to make the objection go away
how is that not a contradiction? the motive doesn't matter.
In his commentary on Matthew, New Testament scholar D.A. Carson asserts that “It was customary among Jewish writers to arrange genealogies according to some convenient scheme, possibly for mnemonic reasons” (Matthew, The Expositor's Bible Commentary, pg. 241).
In other words, the author of Matthew, in omitting certain generations from his genealogy of Jesus, would have simply been conforming to what was (at his time) an accepted literary convention--one that he would have expected his first-century Jewish audience to recognize and appreciate.
So of course motive matters! A respectable interpretation of any textual work must take into account the rhetorical goals and motives of its author(s)--not to mention its genre, intended audience, and surrounding sociocultural context (among other things). To do otherwise is simply to engage in bad exegesis, as any respectable biblical scholar (Dan McClellan included) would readily affirm.
A contradiction (in any meaningful sense of the word) only arises when we impose a strictly literal reading of the genealogy--a reading that its author plausibly never even intended.
@@tuamigogringo7136 lol the words on the page are literally a contradiction. I don't care about apologetics or guesses about who might have meant what.
@@tuamigogringo7136 1. The author was not jewish 2. The author was Gentile writing in Greek and not an eyewitness of Jesus 3. The author just made stuff up, as many around the time did. E.g. GMat copied and changed GMark. Gluke did the same. Literally hundreds of writings in the first three centuries did
Imagine that, a Christian apologetics book that's nothing but bollocks. Who would have believed it?
Love thst DD shirt!
My grandfather is a right wing authoritarian, and you wouldn't believe how he negotiates with the Bible, I mean wow. I keep sending him Dan's videos so he can be re-educated but grandpa says he refuses to watch unbiased videos (smh). And Dan's videos are obviously like the most unbiased videos in the world, so anyway please pray that God will send Their blessings upon my grandpa to soften his heart. Thanks guys 🙏
Good research once again. Thank you.
Any plans to respond to claims from Ray Comfort's "100 Scientific Facts in the Bible"?
that's unfair and a cheap shot, Dan. Matthew's genealogy taken literally is incorrect possibly in several places. Matthew's point is not to be literally correct, it's to trace the right to the throne, often tweaking generations to fit a certain numerical pattern.
It's not a contradiction, you're just misreading the Hebrew ..... of a Greek text....
Look for
The Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy.
I think you'll enjoy it.
Getting their knickers all twisted up about contradictions is a penalty that biblical literalists inflict upon themself. If your belief universe proceeds on the assumption that the Bible is infallible then you have an unsolvable problem trying to resolve them (just look at the variation in the accounts of the resurrection for example). I'm not religious in any way, but there are much more nuanced and useful approaches to the text that even faithful religious people can take that don't require the silliness that those who profess biblical inerrancy are stuck with.
101 Contradictions and Recipes.
😂😂😂
If the bible was truly the word of a god, it wouldn't need defending. Come on, man!!
"that you can get in our tiktok shop"
dude, if you wanna do christian capitalism, at least get the thing bound properly! that's so embarassing.
Honestly can't believe Dan doesn't have more subs on the channel ? His explanations are so interesting even when some of it goes over my head
He's nearing 1 million subs on TikTok, so thankfully it's getting out there.
I'm a practicing Buddhist. I follow this channel because I am so impressed by Dan's vast knowledge of the subject and his ability to remember so many facts. And in different languages too!
He's a real smarty!
His personality is abrasive and his videos mean-spirited, so he's not likely to get a lot of subs here unless he can magically add charisma to his personality.
@ldr540 you are very wrong but very confident in your incorrectness
@AurorXZ I don't use tik tok or X or Facebook so I get my common sense here on TH-cam
Jesus Loves me 🥰
He Will Bless me 😇
All I need to know 😊❤
“Nah I’m good” heck yeah, Dan. Heck yeah
Aka, 101 bible contradictions apologized away.
Dan, you are a flipping genius!
If the bible was true it wouldn’t need so many books and pamphlets explaining it
Why even defend the Bible? Believe it or dont. But this defending just produces more Atheists then Richard Dawkins. Cause people will look at your bullshit, doubt it and then find other things to doubt.
Instead spend that time beeing a good person instead of a hypocrite.
Should be 101 excuses.
Dan, you know this is a fringe take based on…dictionaries definitions of one word? Compressing genealogies was a common practice. You don’t have to agree with the position to represent it fairly.
“Pedestrian attempt”?
Do better.
Dude, the author of that book thought Matthew was written in *Hebrew.* Dan is reading from the Greek in which it was written.
Do better.
@ it was a cheap shot, and a bad one, at a creator who wasn’t attacking anyone. Dan is incredibly clever, but in this one he was lazy and needlessly demeaning.
The same word (G1080) is also used in John 8:41 when the priests are defending their ancestral roots to Abraham ("we are not illegitimate children"). Abraham lived thousands of years before this took place.
Jesus used a related word (G1081) when he called the scribes and pharisees "a brood/generation of vipers". So I guess, according to Dan, their parents were vipers?
"Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets. Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers. Ye serpents, ye generation (G1081)of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell? Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city: That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar" (Matthew 23:31-35)
How distinguishing between the pre-Babylonian captivity definitions of El (God) and Elohim (sons/beings of El) versus the post-captivity syncretized definitions could resolve contradictions and cast the Yahweh figure of Genesis 2-3 in a very different light from the transcendent Elohim portrayed in Genesis 1.
Pre-Captivity Definitions:
In this framework, the supreme creator deity is simply referred to as El - God. The Elohim are understood as a pantheon or "sons of El" - lesser divine beings subordinate to El. This aligns with ancient Canaanite and older Israelite religious conceptions.
Under these definitions, the Genesis 1 account would refer to the transcendent El as the prime creator, with the Elohim (plural) potentially being celestial forces/angels enacting aspects of the creation. The Ruach Elohim (Spirit/Breath of the divine beings) hovering over the primordial waters connects to surviving traces of this worldview.
Crucially, this allows one to separate the Elohim of Genesis 1 from the distinct Yahweh Elohim first appearing in Genesis 2 to form man from the dust. Based on references like Deuteronomy 32:8-9, the pre-captivity perspective viewed Yahweh as one of the sons of El (an Elohim) rather than conflating him with El itself.
This de-syncretization casts Yahweh as a separate, lesser, more anthropomorphic deity associated with the ancient Israelites - perhaps retained from their Canaanite heritage. His behavior and commandments in Genesis 2-3 and elsewhere in the Torah would then represent the teachings of this tribal desert deity, not the supreme metaphysical creator El.
The Garden Scenario Reframed
From this vantage point, the events of Genesis 2-3 can be interpreted not as ordained by the most high El creator, but rather as humanity's initial tragic entrapment by the lesser devolved being Yahweh within his constructed realm of mortality, suffering, and cosmic privation.
Yahweh's wrathful conduct, his placing of humans under a yoke of commandments, his expulsion from Eden's paradisiacal environment, and the subsequent violent legacy of his covenants and laws all derive from the subjugating delusions and stunted, anthropocentric conception of this finite Elohim - not the infinite plenitude of the supreme El.
Contradictions Resolved
Separating El from Yahweh along the pre-captivity definitional lines could resolve contradictions in several important ways:
1) It distinguishes the transcendent, metaphysically profound cosmic creator portrayed in Genesis 1 from the all-too-human tribal deity of the remaining Torah material.
2) It allows for a reframing of the Torah's teachings around blood sacrifice, ethnic conflicts, law codes, etc. as the cultural mythological traditions of ancient Israelite history rather than attributed to the most high El itself.
3) It creates space for the Christ figure of the New Testament to represent a re-emergence of the supreme El's sovereignty and universal spiritual path - overriding the outdated covenants, ethnic segregations, and violent subjugations prescribed by the lesser Yahweh consciousness.
4) Humanity's existential struggling, our proclivity towards violence/evil, and our fundamental state of cosmic imprisonment can be metaphysically associated with the fallout of our ancient reunion from Yahweh's corrupted influence rather than the designs of the supreme El consciousness.
5) Competing depictions of the divine across different books (wrathful/peaceful, loving/cruel, spiritual/legalistic) can be added to different nodes of the El vs. Yahweh consciousness schisms.
While still requiring some nuanced interpretation, this delineation allows for a coherent reintegration of Old and New Testament perspectives under a broader metaphysical framework. It preserves the universal spiritual integrity of the highest Creator from the cultural mythological contexts surrounding the more finite tribal deity Yahweh.
By embracing the pre-syncretized definitions and recognizing the conflation of El and Yahweh as a later imposition, one can reconnect with deep streams of ancient Hebrew theological diversity. This presents an intellectually robust path for understanding the unified trajectory of the biblical texts as exploring a single universetheological consciousness's reassertion over more contingent, anthropomorphized deviations and exiles.
Exodus 15
Names of God Bible
2 Yah is my strength and my song.
He is my Savior.
This is my El, and I will praise him,
my father’s Elohim, and I will honor him.
🤔 🤔 🤔
Ok, Mr. A.I. Marcion
@caseycrowe3805
Didn't Marcion reject the Torah entirely?
How does this relate to what was discussed in this video? It has nothing whatsoever to do with either passage, and doesn't even touch on translation.
You contradict scripture. You break scripture. You nullify scripture. You deny scripture. You don't believe in scripture. Be bold about your beliefs and put it on a sweatshirt, "I argue scripture" "I contradict scripture" "There is no scripture" "Im a homosexual" "Intellect is truth" "Marvel better"
Actually the T shirts I want to see would read.....I Call Myself a Christian But Hate Migrants, Even After Christ Told Me To Care for Them....or I Admire Rich People And See Nothing Wrong in Being Rich, in Spite of What Christ Said About the Rich....or I like to Judge Others, Now If I Could Just Get Rid of James 4:11-12, Romans 14:10, John 8:7, and Matthew 7:1-5. THOSE would be great T shirts.
the projection is strong in this comment
The way he pronounces book.