Right? It's crazy that random people on tiktok think they've read more than scholars that study that topic. The idea that biblical scholars don't read ancient texts is baffling
And How would people know what Exodus says by reading other ancient civilizations’ texts? Or even the Judahites’? Look at the summaries of the letters from the Elephantine Colony: no Moses, no Exodus.
This guy is off his rocker. Everybody knows that Apophis wasn't the snake in the garden. Apophis was a system lord of the Goa'uld. He was finally defeated and killed by SG-1 in 2001.
Actually he was a throne Guardian: one of those with the Snake head helmets : SG-1 gets the imagery correct. Eve was not shocked this divine person was talking to her : an actual animal would be a different story. Egyptians called these Seraphim and this" Snake" is referencing them.
Why do people who have no credentials in a certain area feel they have authority to speak on said something? This guy has no clue about the context of the collation of the Bible. I can't take him seriously. Thank you again, Dan, for what you do.
Beliefs are more important than knowledge because the more you know, the more you are able to question your beliefs -- and that's uncomfortable and even dangerous. Questions are bad because they prove you don't actually know everything. Research requires effort, which is a waste because it will just prove you were right anyway.
I think it's deceptively easy to spend a lot of time reading the Bible, reading about the Bible, centering your life on the Bible, etc., without having any idea how great the gap is between your understanding and that of sophisticated experts. There probably are a lot of arenas in life where a religious zealot's level of dedication would be sufficient to develop true expertise, and it's not inherently foolish for these people to mistakenly believe they have a better grasp of the Bible than they do. It's not obvious to the layperson how far out the branches of biblical study go, how much one needs to know to have appreciable understanding. Moreover, they're immersed in a culture that endorses the notion that such laypeople are in fact experts.
"you wouldn't like me when I'm angry because I cite references and provide relevant resources while providing a balanced view on the academic consensus" Dan "the credible hulk" McClellan
In 1200 BC, Canaan was part of the Egyptian empire. Moses and friends could have followed the coastal forts for 10 days, and upon arrival asked the Egyptian governor where to park.
See this is why it's more likely that the local Canaanites who had been conquered by the New Kingdom simply developed folk tales about their Egyptian oppressors, and then hundreds of years after their departure, the resulting oral tradition yielded millions escaping bondage in Egypt rather than maybe a few thousand fleeing the coast for the hill country.
It would have taken weeks or months to have the hundreds of thousands cross the sea. Would it stay parted that long? Also, they would have outnumbered the army by a massive number. Human waves could have easily overwhelmed the Egyptian forces named. And the question remains; with all the horses dead from plague, what pulled fhe chariots?
Whenever I am told this story, I simply ask “What was the pharaoh’s name and we will look him up.” People often respond with Bishop Ussher’s terrible timeline, which does give a date. We can see who the pharaoh was, how they actually died, and show a map of Canaan being part of Egypt. QED
The snake is conceptualised as crafty, as associated with eternal life, as associated with wisdom and healing In the Garden of Eden it told the truth the whole truth and nothing but the Truth. How is this a bad guy? 🤷🏻
He talks about snakes like Egyptians or ancient Semites would only associate them with a god. They had snakes in their gardens like we do today! They knew what snakes were! Also, assuming historicity, why would the Israelites associate with an Egyptian deity? They weren't "Egyptian refugees" they were a distinct culture kept as slaves by the Egyptians. Unless they continued teaching their kids about Egyptian cosmology, there would be no reason to use Egyptian symbols in their writing.
it's really stunning to see what people will do to get others to believe them, to listen to them, to follow them. To make themselves known. But because they don't know anything, and because it's so d easy to invent whole cloth from all the misunderstood threads in their brains, they give themselves meaning and share it with others, waiting, hoping, desiring them to join in their conceit.
Sadly, honesty takes second place to preaching. It doesn't matter to him that every word he said is a lie, it's getting the message out there. @@MarcosElMalo2
@@MarcosElMalo2Exactly. The ignorance and misinformation of apologists is progressively coming across as deliberate deception. The opposition of theologians and apologists against objective biblical scholars reminds me of what the great jazz musician Louis Armstrong once told his band members when they were playing bad notes: "Y'all ain't gon' f*ck up my l'il hustle". 🤣
@@MarcosElMalo2Would it though? My experience is that people tend to raise their children to hold their same beliefs. Knowingly teaching them false things would be... quite a thing to do. Especially given the subject of christian conceptions of Satan and hell. These ideas cause a lot of trauma for people. I suppose if they never said a word about any of it there might be some room for allowance. But as things stand, that seems like it would be an outlier.
As someone who wasted over two decades of my life naively asserting my dogmatism, I heartily approve of this message 😅. But I doubt I’d have appealed to Egyptian divine lore to shore up the Genesis talking serpent .. any more than I’d have appealed to Jack & the Beanstalk to explain the half-human-angel giants cited in Genesis 6
Props to the original creator for coming up with at least an interesting theory now if he only submitted it to the academy or talked to some scholars whether there is something to that theory rather than looking for satans or opponents this might have been a better experience than posting that take and being taken down a peg by Dan here
It’s difficult for people who are following hundreds of years of interpretation to put themselves in the place of the original authors who had none of that in mind in 800 BCE.
Moses received the entire Torah from God, both the Written Torah (the Five Books of Moses) and the Oral Torah. Every native Hebrew speaker knows why sola scriptura falls apart.
@@hrvatskinoahid1048Dr.Gavin Ortlund explains why it doesn't . Two Powers in Heaven Israelite theology explains why the trinity is from the Hebrew Bible and Genesis 19:24 has these 2 persons of YHWH in the Same verse. Christianity is the continuation of Biblical Judaism that Rabbinic Judaism rejected in the 2nd century AD.
@@davidjanbaz7728 The Hebrew text consists of consonants only; there are no written vowels. Words without vowels are clearly ambiguous; they could be read in many different ways with altogether differing meanings. Islam is the continuation of Christianity. It's easy to play that game.
For those of us on a laptop watching on TH-cam, it would be great if Dan could provide links to those articles flashed up on the screen. The print is too small on screen.
This creator seems to be trying to do a mutually contradictory thing: he's implicitly claiming that the Bible is an accurate historical text, and also that it is a non-original derivation of Egyptian myth. He wants the "scholarship" to be "true Christian" but also the Bible apparently cannot establish its own facts, it relies on other pre-existing facts to inform what it lays out. And while the latter part is sorta true within certain contexts (not the ones he's trying to claim, but c'est la vie), it's also incompatible with the former goal he's attempting to pursue. Cognitive dissonance is a hell of a drug.
I suppose one could look more intelligent by sitting in front of a home library. However, the few books I can make out are written by folks such as Ann Rice, Ken Follet, Michael Crichton, John le Carré, John Grisham, etc. So right off the bat it’s hard to take him seriously. He does have one Spanish dictionary and a collection of Nancy Drew/Hardy Boy books, though. So I suppose there’s hope. 🥳 Oh, and the mini Moai 🗿on the top book shelf is a nice touch.
I suppose somebody could really look intelligent if they explained to me to my satisfaction how an all loving God, the basis for absolute morality, could be the same entity that ordered Joshua to commit his war crimes in the Levant. How this completely beneficent entity could command the deaths of innocent unborn children. How this completely consistent all-powerful being could claim that the sins of the Father will be punished into the third and fourth generations, and then in the same book say that parents will not suffer for the sins of their children nor children suffer for the sins of their parents.
@@tompatierno5606 Exodus 20:5: "You shall neither prostrate yourself before them nor worship them, for I, the Lord, your God, am a zealous God, Who visits the iniquity of the fathers upon the sons, upon the third and the fourth generation of those who hate Me." He does not punish those who repent.
@@squiddwizzard8850 As the Targum Onkelos paraphrases: when the sons continue to sin following their fathers, i.e., when they cling to their fathers’ deeds.
@@Noneya5555 That took a dark turn, heh. If during the Baptismal Rites, the priest starts debating you about the plural stem of the Hebrew-inspired middle name of your godson, then you should probably move on to the Last Rites ;)
This apologist does own a sweater, so, you know, instant cred. So much harm comes from unfounded dogma. No one is separated from God/creator in spite of a story and a man in a sweater speaking on camera in front of books.
I could be wrong about this, but if I recall the dates correctly, I don't think they line up for having Apophis being a major part of Egyptian religion when proto-archaic Judaism was absorbing whatever elements it borrowed. The Hebrews were most likely in Egypt from sometime in the second intermediate period until roughly the middle of the New Kingdom so from 3800 to 2500 years ago give or take. This was well after the Akhenaten affair which profoundly influenced the nature of Egyptian solar worship even though it was largely discarded as heresy by the time of King Tut. Apep/Apophis IIRC is mostly a figure from the Heliopolitan period of the Middle Kingdom going back to about 4000 to 3800 years ago. Beyond any textual evidence it doesn't make much more sense from a chronological perspective than the idea that Joseph was responsible for building the pyramids (which are even older and further away in time).
Hey Dan, in the tradition I grew up in, the book of Job was also supposed to have been written by Moses. Where did this tradition of authorship emerge?
That said, it is very common in many cultures to name people after the place that they came from or what they did, or what they were noted for. These did not necessarilty jive with reality. If you are named Smith is that absolute evidence that you had a goldsmith or blacksmith in your family?? Or Jesus of Nazareth, or Edward the Confessor, or William the Conqueror? Sometimes the family or tribal name is descriptive, and sometimes it is not. Nations in antiquity only slowly developed a geographical identity. This changed over time due to wars, marriages of nobles, soverigns, etc. The Saxons for example were a tribe of no particular location, but had a common language and set of customs. If you look for a nation called "Saxony' over time, it jumps over the map quite a bit. If you use the term "mouse', it doesn't say much about the type of mouse. You can tell that it is a mammal, but what type of mammal? If you use the qualifier "marsupial" mouse then you know more specifics about its biology. If you use the name Dasyuridae, then you know it is a marsupial mouse located in Austrlaia and new Zealand, with 71 extant species divided into 17 genera. You already know something about its position on the phylogenetic tree [sorry Darwin, I meant tangled bank! :-) ]. You know something about its relationship to other organisms, its evolution, biology, its antiquity as a species, etc, etc. All from a few seconds in a search engine. That can lead to even more detail about that humble mouse. A sepent or snake in an ancient text? In what context or meaning was it used? Australian indigenous nations knew all about platypuses and kangaroos. Well, not everything, and they did have myths about things. The Waugal [various spellings] is a snake or rainbow serpent recognised by Noongar [WA] as the giver of life, maintaining all fresh water sources. Sure, all these myths and traditions have immense cultural and historical value. And it is good to debunk inaccuracies, inconstancies, and bad faith actors. And it is all very fascinating. Up to a point. But nearly all knowledge in antiquity was based on the relative survival value of Type One verses Type Two errors. It was safer to assume from a survival perspective that the ruslting bush contained a dangerous predator, and not simply the wind making the bushes move. Most of the time it WAS just the wind, but the cost of just assuming it WAS the wind was death. This lead to the personification of "good' and "evil". "Human tactical paranoia", if you will. Justified if you want to survive, but getting to understand nature, not so much. So the poor old sepent gets blamed for many things, "guilty" or not. So the real question is not the misuse or proper use as a sepent being the personification of evil or not, the whole things got off track by the personification of good and evil to begin with! Sure, a predator does have an "agenda" [to survive like everything else] but giving agency or intent to lightning, etc is a little over-much. Lightning CAN kill you, but implying intent or purpose, is a non-starter. Antiquity is riddled with this type of magical thinking. Yes, of course, this is all with the benefit of hindsight. I am not implying that the ancients were stupid, or anything like that. But it is exhausting in some ways. many of these ideas of antiquity have been debunked over and over, and yet people demand we respect these ideas, simply because of popularity or age. And when we don't, we are attacking religion. Or worse, accused of an ad hominem! And many of these ideas, still perpetuated, have real-world harmful effects. You can do a bonza lierally review of Orwell's "1984", and note the skills of the narrator, the characters in the plot, etc, etc. But beyond that, what is the point? Some folks will read it as a horrifying salutary tale, and others will use it as a playbook for a totalitarian state!
The video starts out as refutation of a video creator but turns into a more interesting telling of mythological snakes, which deserve their own video. I think the video creator isn't wrong to associate the snake in the Garden of Eden with disorder and chaos.
2:19 “If they bother to actually *read* anything from ancient civilizations, they would know,” … *[what only one ancient text says.]* How would you know what Exodus says by reading the Book of the Dead or the Cyrus Cylinder? Or better yet, the letters from the *Elephantine colony,* where Judahites seemed to have no concept of Moses or the Exodus?
My question always is, does Satan have legs? Most of the depictions of Satan in Christian art provides him with lets. He’s usually talked about in Christian literature as having legs. But the one defining feature of the snake from the garden of Eden is it had its legs taken away, and what’s more it was cursed by god themselve to slither on its belly for the rest of time. If the snake was Satan then the whole not having legs and only being able to move around on his belly would be pretty notable features of Satan I would have thought. On the other hand, there are things that are still to this day famous for not having legs and moving around on their belly, snakes
That shirt is litty. Or is it lit? You would know, Dan. I just bought an Ishtar statue and she has a serpent on her. 😱 Another relevant work is Elaine Pagels's _The Origin of Satan_.
*Yahweh raises satan* In 1 Kings 11:14, 2nd? earliest^ use of the word _satan,_ Yahweh raised Hadad as a _satan_ against Shlomoh (Solomon). It just means adversary or something similar. ^2nd earliest to 1 Samuel 29:4? I’m going by my amateur understanding of which books/chapters were written first. Most uses of the word are probably post-Exile, in Job and Zechariah
Do you know of any academic resources that pools together the idea of a "primeval serpent"? It feels like another common thread across many religions and mythologies between Norse Mythology and Jörmungandr and the Bible and the snake in the garden of Eden, plus Baal and Leviathan and how it connects to YHWH along with it existing in ancient Sumerian traditions.
What would we expect of a people living in the Levant? It is a land bridge between continents. It is a middle ground between warring superpowers at different times. The wide-ranging, merchant Phoenicians would leave some effect. Symbols and myths from the Assyrians, Egyptians, Greeks, and more would work their way into the mythology and symbols of Israelite culture after a few generations of mixing business, government, and families. After Jesus, the same assimilation of cultural symbols continues as Christianity reaches out to the gentile world: Roman household gods are replaced by patron saints, shamrocks symbolize the Trinity, a Celtic symbol for the sun god becomes a crucifix, lunar calendar is replaced by solar calendar, and more changes. The symbols and myths become as important as the possible historical truths in the Bible and in some cases, even more important. Judeo-Christian history is nothing but years of cultural changes, tying itself to different versions of perceived historical fact whether or not it was a "fact", under the title of "faith."
The arrogance of this type of content creators combined with their evident lack of knowledge, presented with such unwarranted confidence, makes it hard to watch these videos. The only consolation is that Dan will appear after a moment to set the record straight.
What would have happened if Eve hadn't eaten the fruit? Would her and Adam still be in the garden? The "trickster" archetype actions caused Adam and Eve to be banished from the Garden and to begin to reproduce. Also, the murderous Cain and his descendants invented cities, metallurgy, and music. Just food for thought. 😊
The Tanakh in Ezekiel 28:11-19 and Isaiah 14:3-20 speak of this figure the King of Tyrus and the King of Babylon Hilel (Lucifer). They speak about how these figures were cast down to the earth because of their sin of pride and wanting to be equal with God, whom once being in the presence of God as a minister lost those privileges because of blasphemy and apostasy. These figures are one and who is the serpent in the Garden of Eden aka Hilel as he was formerly called but now is he the accuser or adversary/ha'satan. The reason for the titles "the king of Tyrus" and "Babylon" is to poetically speak to the real ruler of the dominant world power, which in every case has a divine entity behind it who is the real governor; e.g. with Ysra'el it is YHWH but with the rest of the heathens it is Satan (another e.g. Daniel 10:12,13 ). We see this knowledge portrayed in the NT with Paul, John and in the Gospels that Satan has authority and rules this world via the dominant world powers giving them their power; this authority has been given to him by God (2 Cor 4:3,4, Eph 2:2, Rev 2:13, Rev 13:14, Luk 4:4-8, Mat 4:8-10). Ezekiel describes this King of Tyrus to be in the garden of Eden but not only that, he walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire, in the holy mountain of God in the presence of God, we know this is not talking about a mortal Phoenician King. These are describing celestial locations as does Isaiah 14 describing this person wanting to rise above the stars of God, setting their throne in the mount of the congregation in the sides of the north, above the heights of the clouds. It is evident that the Israelites according to the Holy Prophets knew who that serpent was in the Garden of Eden, he was Hilel who became the Satan not just a satan which anyone can be in a certain context as an adversary towards someone. So that's why we see the NT shake hands with the OT (as they always do) in the book of Revelation ch.12 where John an Israelite familiar with the Tanakah the Holy Scriptures calls Satan the dragon, the devil, that old serpent who was cast out of heaven as do the prophets say. He's called the accuser of the brethren, a role we see him play in the book of Job. We also see Michael the Archangel fighting against this dragon/serpent as we see in Daniel 10:12,13 but under the title the prince of Persia. Celestial beings would not be fighting mortals who would be no match. Revelation 12 and 20 shake hands with the prophecies of Isaiah and Ezekiel showing how this Satan is going to be cast down and become the scorn of the earth in his demise mocked by the inhabitants of the earth. Satan was cast down the first time out of heaven, and he is going to be cast down into the bottomless pit bound for 1000 years, then finally cast into the lake of fire tormented for eternity. So no, Satan is not some new concept added later on into the Bible as a character in the Greco-Roman times, it was already known who he was. Again it must be reiterated as also is done by many true Biblical Christian Scholars; your "Academic Consensus" is not the sound proof end all and be all of Biblical Schlorship and interpretation because you scoff at the Word of God thinking it to be but myths and tales. God has allowed you to be blinded by the prince of this world to not see the Bible for what it truly is because of your unbelief. Repent and ask God for eye salve that you may truly see His word and the eternal life He has to offer you, the blessedness of the Gospel, the great love and mercy He has to impart on those that love Him. Isaiah 56:1,2 Psalms 119:1,2 Jeremiah 29:12,13 2 Thessalonians 2:9-12 Revelation 3:17-22 John 7:38 John 11:26 Romans 6:22,23 1 Corinthians 2:9 Psalms 103:17,18
I don't think the idea is Greco-Roman-it's actually late medieval. There's no need to assume that any two mentions of a devil in the new testament are in fact referring to the same persona
It isn't illegitimate - conversely - to interpret the talking "snake" as a deity resident in the Garden (the home of gods) who wanted to cause a rift between the Most High & the mere mortals who had been exalted to the god-like status of living in the garden (due to jealousy of the fact that mere mortals were being exalted to the status of deity like him; this is indirectly reflected in Islamic/Jewish traditions about Adam). It's even further probable (as Michael Heiser points out) that the garden of Eden's "serpent" might be connected to a Canaanite myth reflected in Ezekiel in which a deity is said to have lost a previous glory & is banished to the underworld ("erets" in Hebrew; although it's not the more conventional word Sheol). The snake deity was probably "snake-like" in partial anatomy alone. Alternatively, it may never have had a snake-like anatomy, but was only called a snake as a wordplay on the "Shining One" hebrew root "nhs" (the double meaning of "shining" & "snake"). Therefore, it can be correct that there's a slight prejudice in scholarship against finding "satan-ish traditions" in the Garden story, especially against connecting this "serpent" to the character that is often misinterpreted as Adam in Ezekiel
Dan, do you have a PO Box, you should really read my book? The Serpent is the progenitor comet and its remains making up The Taurid Meteor Stream as the Superbolide in our world creating chaos. In the book I'm just finishing up, The Zoda, the author talks about a number of people in agreement that there was a war with the cosmic serpent before Creation. This would be The Younger Dryas Impacts Theory, and the Deluge being the Space Fall into the Indian Ocean off Madagascar ~4200 thousand years ago creating the chevron tsunami evidence of the area. I find it amazing that no one will bother to look at something I have been working on since we first stepped on the Moon. It is the reason that the number seven is within most of the world's ancient mythology, plus the texts describe, in detail, this inner solar system phenomena. The darkness is not diurnal, nor seasonal, it is about Impact Winter for long periods of time.
@@alanb8884 How is it that people can understand convoluted Science Fiction, yet can not venture this concept. The Cover-er is the atmospheric loading of the planet, the Cherub; Seraphim; Shechinah, covering the Ark of our world that originated from the Pleiades.
@@DavidAlastairHayden Ya know it is very similar to that film, when everybody starts leaving the room during Daniel Jackson's presentation. And when he draws the Eye of Ra in the sand to which the leader immediately obfuscates it. Or when he is correcting the translation on the chalkboard and remarks, "Who the Hell translated this?" The Star Gate is The Golden Gate of the Ecliptic, the Pleiades, the radiant of the Taurids, the Halloween Fireballs. The Real New Years!
Really interesting - and telling - how so many dogmas (with the exception of Buddhism) depend on blind acceptance, ignorance and fear, and exploits deception and hatred of the other. And yet the monotheistic dogma has as it's foundation a loving, tolerant parent deity. No, that's not hypocritical at all. Smh...
Why are all of these people always so smug? Dan just gives facts about ancient writings and civilizations and these guys are always so performative. It seems like the more uneducated they are the more confidence they have...see also Ken Hamm.
If your book has been sifted through countless unknown authors, editors, and redactors, analyzed by countless scholars and church leaders, and also requires some sort of concordance to arrive at countless interpretations of its meaning, maybe your book has some issues of credibility.
Jewish scholars do not use your interpretive framework or your terminology. The oral Torah has thirteen rules for exegesis. You can call it data, dogma, presupposition or something else entirely. That being said, the serpent from the Garden of Eden has nothing to do with Apophis.
@@hrvatskinoahid1048 how so? Are we required to follow the supposed thirteen rules for exegesis? Even if we’re not Jewish? Or do they line up exactly with scholarly and academic consensus?
@@hrvatskinoahid1048 uh huh. Sure. Now, what exactly does following the laws of noah have to do with academic consensus and study of the book of Genesis? And who are you to say we have to follow the laws anyway?
I do feel spritually connected to this creator. I, as well, use to sit in front of a book case when I’m on video calls to make myself appear more learned.
I was trying to make out the books he has. The ones I can make out are fiction authors like Ann Rice and Ken Follett. He also has some Nancy Drew or Hardy Boys books (the yellow ones on the left) & a Spanish dictionary. 🤭
Well, the word serpo means "winded instrument" which could be "a voice". The serpent is the representation of our desire. The snake dates back to Hindu were desire is represented by the serpent because the way a serpent kills is primarily strangulation. This is to say that our desires can strangle our well being. This same symbol is replaced later by the noose as representative of the same concept of the restrictive nature of desire. In that symbol it is usually shown as the noose is cut free and hangs down around the neck to represent a person has freed themselves of desires (specifically the desire to live forever, so therefore free of the restriction of the knowledge of your own death). Again, the Bible is not a read through historical event, it is an explanation of the evolution of consciousness, at the same time it is explaining the development of a singular human individual, because the patterns of each are the same.
Unfortunately Prof. McCellan has no choice but to parse his rebuttals and explanations with the original creator's mocking, laughing, high-pitched "evil" cartoon villain voice&face. No offense to him ;) Casual apologetic religion is a growth enterprise, whether filling mega churches or carving out a niche in the apologetic hysteria stream archipelago (like the person I described above with multiple adjectives). And almost none of them are willing/capable of undergoing the enormous sacrifice of time, money and intellectual grind to learn Hebrew/Greek/Coptic et. al. while defending a dissertation, publishing under deadlines and reading tome after tome -- like our host creator.
@@michaelmaloskyjrthat was no educated Christian Apologists: typical of who Dan debunks so I would also see his statements as erroneous but" let's see it" Dan : try debunking an actual Biblical Scholar like Dr.Michael S.Heiser.
@davidjanbaz7728 "[Dan] try debunking an actual Biblical scholar like Dr. Michael S. Heiser." If you heard and understood Prof. McCellan's oft-stated goals: "To bring Biblical scholarship into the public forum" and "combat popular misconceptions and disinformation" then you'll know his YT shorts take on public creators from TikTok and YT who often wade into Scriptural interpretation waters way over their heads. Their claims range from the conspiratorial to the ridiculous to outright deceit to honest mistakes. Putting aside the fact that Evangelical OT scholar Dr. Michael S. Heiser is dead, why specifically HERE in this post did you name drop? I'm sensing a non-sequitur here, as if you're implying Prof. Dan should "pick on somebody his own size," which if so, you completely miss the point of Prof Dan's side mission here. Besides if Dr. Heiser was still alive, true Biblical scholars publish their arguments in journals to which they're rebutted in those same journals. See how that works? If it's true Dr. Heiser truly believes there was a historical, physical worldwide flood event wiping out the entire geological column, after which all life began again from the survivors riding in an ark 5,000 years ago -- well, you absolutely don't need Dan to ridiculously and thoroughly debunk that a million times over, do you?
@@davidjanbaz7728 "Dan: try debunking an actual Biblical scholar like Dr. Michael S. Heiser" So to be clear, you are aware of Prof Dan's "side mission" here in YT? The one he oft repeats about "bringing Biblical scholarship into the public forum" and countering "disinformation and misinformation" promoted by some TikTok/YT creators? And putting aside for a moment that Evangelical OT scholar Dr Michael S. Heiser is dead, why exactly did you name drop here, in this specific post? Was there some Dr. Heiser scholarship that could illuminate this issue? Or is this some kind of non-sequitur, "pick on somebody your own size, Dan" kind of tossed out comment? If that's the case, you completely misunderstand (sadly) Prof. Dan's goal here. Besides if there was a scholarly argument Dr. McCellan had with Dr. Heiser, then where you think that goes? If you guessed a scholarly journal where they can publish and rebut each other, you guessed correctly :) Lastly, since Dr. Heiser had many paranormal beliefs about Nephilium and a historical, physical flood event wiping out all life on Earth, save a few survivors on an ark 5,000 yrs ago -- well, I'm not sure Prof. Dan has anything to debunk there which hasn't already been ridiculously and thoroughly invalidated a million times over.
Unfortunately there are hundreds and hundreds of millions of people fully invested in the "lore" for thousands of years influencing almost every facet of JudeoChristian cultures and non (think -- war, trade, tech, science, etc.) It's a wildly connected nexus of influences. Juuust a little different from a short-lived, disappointing TV series that gets quickly replaced by yet another in an already disposable consumer entertainment market.
Also, you can site "consensus" all day. That in and of itself has absolutely no value to whether they are right or wrong. If you follow the bouncing ball, the vast majority of what we call "scientifically known" is still simply theory. Therefore scientific consensus is meaninglessness. You want to say that for the pure fact that everyone agrees on something, that in and of itself makes it correct. If the world really worked like this we would still have models of our solar system with earth at the center. The claim of "academic consensus" has absolutely no meaning or value to the truth. We don't dictate truth based on popular opinion. Which in reality, no "academic consensus" can prove their theories, so therefore it is simply "a majority OPINION". Their interpretation of the Bible is a theory like any other mystery. There is nothing to say that their theories are correct, but just that they are popular.
Consensus doesn't mean nothing though, now does it? At the very least it means that people who are educated more or less agree on something. And it's true that consensus doesn't make reality, but it's also true that data is what leads to consensus. Your example of the geocentric picture of the universe is actually a great way to show my point. It wasn't like there was a geocentric theory for the universe which had universal consensus. In fact, it was understood to be a theory, and it succeeded in explaining some of the data, but it also failed to explain other data, which is why a heliocentric theory gathered more support. I think where these arguments fall apart and where people get confused is they're familiar with everything in terms of a story, but that's not how it actually happened and the truth was a much more realistic process. Anyways, the Hebrew word for 'satan' not actually connecting the serpent in any way (and in fact only being used twice in the Torah) is pretty damning evidence, and from that it becomes clear how a 'consensus' can actually be formed because I don't think anyone who knows anything thinks otherwise.
"If they bothered to actually READ anything from ancient civilization...." **Dan looks up from reading 1400 year old texts**
Right? It's crazy that random people on tiktok think they've read more than scholars that study that topic. The idea that biblical scholars don't read ancient texts is baffling
Many people "feel" they've read the Scriptures, when tje reality is they've spent many hours listening to preachers reading to them.
And How would people know what Exodus says by reading other ancient civilizations’ texts?
Or even the Judahites’? Look at the summaries of the letters from the Elephantine Colony: no Moses, no Exodus.
This guy is off his rocker. Everybody knows that Apophis wasn't the snake in the garden. Apophis was a system lord of the Goa'uld. He was finally defeated and killed by SG-1 in 2001.
Actually he was a throne Guardian: one of those with the Snake head helmets : SG-1 gets the imagery correct.
Eve was not shocked this divine person was talking to her : an actual animal would be a different story.
Egyptians called these Seraphim and this" Snake" is referencing them.
Perfect explanation, I'll go with that 😂
Why do people who have no credentials in a certain area feel they have authority to speak on said something? This guy has no clue about the context of the collation of the Bible. I can't take him seriously. Thank you again, Dan, for what you do.
But, they got the feels, THE FEELS. And that’s just as good as facts, right?
In psychology, it's called the Dunning-Kruger effect. Socrates described it as the result of not being aware of one's own ignorance.
Beliefs are more important than knowledge because the more you know, the more you are able to question your beliefs -- and that's uncomfortable and even dangerous.
Questions are bad because they prove you don't actually know everything.
Research requires effort, which is a waste because it will just prove you were right anyway.
I think it's deceptively easy to spend a lot of time reading the Bible, reading about the Bible, centering your life on the Bible, etc., without having any idea how great the gap is between your understanding and that of sophisticated experts. There probably are a lot of arenas in life where a religious zealot's level of dedication would be sufficient to develop true expertise, and it's not inherently foolish for these people to mistakenly believe they have a better grasp of the Bible than they do. It's not obvious to the layperson how far out the branches of biblical study go, how much one needs to know to have appreciable understanding.
Moreover, they're immersed in a culture that endorses the notion that such laypeople are in fact experts.
He delivered it with a wise-guy smirk and a dismissive giggle so he must be right. /s
New to this site and loving the education. Thank you!
It's addicting.
"Dogma over data?!?! It's clobbering time!!"
Dan "The Thing" McLellan
"you wouldn't like me when I'm angry because I cite references and provide relevant resources while providing a balanced view on the academic consensus"
Dan "the credible hulk" McClellan
@@azurejester- the original comment was great, and yours was even better.
Oooooh, I'm diggin' the nicknames 😅
Let's take the Bible literally. The serpent was cursed to eat dust. Hence, it was not a snake. It was an earthworm.
Maybe focus on Dan's comic book t-shirts: the real stars of these videos!
And Adam was made from dust so humans are food for Satan.
Fun things happen when we take everything literally.
Where the worm does not die.
Did I stumble on a StarGate podcast?😂😂😂😂
It kinda feels like it.
The Every-Loving, Blue-Eyed Thing will always be the height of fashion.
Ben Grimm certainly has a... rough-edged charm. But I gotta say I'm not a big fan of Frank Miller's art style.
In 1200 BC, Canaan was part of the Egyptian empire. Moses and friends could have followed the coastal forts for 10 days, and upon arrival asked the Egyptian governor where to park.
LOL 😂 as the Philistines would not take kindly to all these people coming into their land!
They would do what the Amalekites did to them.
See this is why it's more likely that the local Canaanites who had been conquered by the New Kingdom simply developed folk tales about their Egyptian oppressors, and then hundreds of years after their departure, the resulting oral tradition yielded millions escaping bondage in Egypt rather than maybe a few thousand fleeing the coast for the hill country.
There are no historical data on Amalekites; they are generally considered a myth.
It would have taken weeks or months to have the hundreds of thousands cross the sea. Would it stay parted that long? Also, they would have outnumbered the army by a massive number. Human waves could have easily overwhelmed the Egyptian forces named.
And the question remains; with all the horses dead from plague, what pulled fhe chariots?
Whenever I am told this story, I simply ask “What was the pharaoh’s name and we will look him up.” People often respond with Bishop Ussher’s terrible timeline, which does give a date. We can see who the pharaoh was, how they actually died, and show a map of Canaan being part of Egypt. QED
One of my very first comics was a hand-me-down Fantastic Four!
Can we all agree Dr Doom is an awesome villain?
The snake is conceptualised as crafty, as associated with eternal life, as associated with wisdom and healing
In the Garden of Eden it told the truth the whole truth and nothing but the Truth.
How is this a bad guy? 🤷🏻
And in the New Testament Jesus instructs his disciples to be "wise as serpents" as they interact with the public....Matt 10:16
"I can't see what's so bad about knowing the difference between good and evil anyway."
Yeah, but at least he was also annoyingly smug while being wrong, so there’s that.
Dan’s catchphrase “in any way, shape, or form whatsoever” can be found at 7:00 😊
He talks about snakes like Egyptians or ancient Semites would only associate them with a god. They had snakes in their gardens like we do today! They knew what snakes were!
Also, assuming historicity, why would the Israelites associate with an Egyptian deity? They weren't "Egyptian refugees" they were a distinct culture kept as slaves by the Egyptians. Unless they continued teaching their kids about Egyptian cosmology, there would be no reason to use Egyptian symbols in their writing.
it's really stunning to see what people will do to get others to believe them, to listen to them, to follow them. To make themselves known. But because they don't know anything, and because it's so d easy to invent whole cloth from all the misunderstood threads in their brains, they give themselves meaning and share it with others, waiting, hoping, desiring them to join in their conceit.
Another graduate of the school of I don't need facts, I have faith.
Which would be fine if they were honest about it.
Sadly, honesty takes second place to preaching. It doesn't matter to him that every word he said is a lie, it's getting the message out there. @@MarcosElMalo2
@@MarcosElMalo2Exactly. The ignorance and misinformation of apologists is progressively coming across as deliberate deception.
The opposition of theologians and apologists against objective biblical scholars reminds me of what the great jazz musician Louis Armstrong once told his band members when they were playing bad notes: "Y'all ain't gon' f*ck up my l'il hustle". 🤣
@@Noneya5555this guy is no Apologist: Dan likes finding the lowest hanging fruit to debunk:
BTW other Authentic Scholars do disagree with Dan.
@@MarcosElMalo2Would it though? My experience is that people tend to raise their children to hold their same beliefs. Knowingly teaching them false things would be... quite a thing to do. Especially given the subject of christian conceptions of Satan and hell. These ideas cause a lot of trauma for people.
I suppose if they never said a word about any of it there might be some room for allowance. But as things stand, that seems like it would be an outlier.
“Scholars” 😂 He honestly thinks he’s just schooled people who have been well schooled through years of study and research.
The hubris is nigh on overwhelming.
Didn't Jesus school the well schooled who professed themselves to be wise by referring to them as vipers?
Just a thought!
Today shirt is AWESOME!!! It's clobbering time (to apologetics)!!
As someone who wasted over two decades of my life naively asserting my dogmatism, I heartily approve of this message 😅. But I doubt I’d have appealed to Egyptian divine lore to shore up the Genesis talking serpent .. any more than I’d have appealed to Jack & the Beanstalk to explain the half-human-angel giants cited in Genesis 6
You are so magnanimous; I don't now how you do it.
The relationship between the serpent in the garden and Cecil from Beany and Cecil has not been sufficiently researched.
"I'll save ya, Adam-boy!"
Why'd ya have to show me a new book, Willis? (I'll be compelled by the evil book demon to buy it now.)
Props to the original creator for coming up with at least an interesting theory now if he only submitted it to the academy or talked to some scholars whether there is something to that theory rather than looking for satans or opponents this might have been a better experience than posting that take and being taken down a peg by Dan here
It’s difficult for people who are following hundreds of years of interpretation to put themselves in the place of the original authors who had none of that in mind in 800 BCE.
Moses received the entire Torah from God, both the Written Torah (the Five Books of Moses) and the Oral Torah. Every native Hebrew speaker knows why sola scriptura falls apart.
@@hrvatskinoahid1048Dr.Gavin Ortlund explains why it doesn't .
Two Powers in Heaven Israelite theology explains why the trinity is from the Hebrew Bible and Genesis 19:24 has these 2 persons of YHWH in the Same verse.
Christianity is the continuation of Biblical Judaism that Rabbinic Judaism rejected in the 2nd century AD.
@@davidjanbaz7728 The Hebrew text consists of consonants only; there are no written vowels. Words without vowels are clearly ambiguous; they could be read in many different ways with altogether differing meanings. Islam is the continuation of Christianity. It's easy to play that game.
For those of us on a laptop watching on TH-cam, it would be great if Dan could provide links to those articles flashed up on the screen. The print is too small on screen.
This creator seems to be trying to do a mutually contradictory thing: he's implicitly claiming that the Bible is an accurate historical text, and also that it is a non-original derivation of Egyptian myth. He wants the "scholarship" to be "true Christian" but also the Bible apparently cannot establish its own facts, it relies on other pre-existing facts to inform what it lays out.
And while the latter part is sorta true within certain contexts (not the ones he's trying to claim, but c'est la vie), it's also incompatible with the former goal he's attempting to pursue. Cognitive dissonance is a hell of a drug.
I suppose one could look more intelligent by sitting in front of a home library. However, the few books I can make out are written by folks such as Ann Rice, Ken Follet, Michael Crichton, John le Carré, John Grisham, etc. So right off the bat it’s hard to take him seriously.
He does have one Spanish dictionary and a collection of Nancy Drew/Hardy Boy books, though. So I suppose there’s hope. 🥳
Oh, and the mini Moai 🗿on the top book shelf is a nice touch.
I suppose somebody could really look intelligent if they explained to me to my satisfaction how an all loving God, the basis for absolute morality, could be the same entity that ordered Joshua to commit his war crimes in the Levant. How this completely beneficent entity could command the deaths of innocent unborn children. How this completely consistent all-powerful being could claim that the sins of the Father will be punished into the third and fourth generations, and then in the same book say that parents will not suffer for the sins of their children nor children suffer for the sins of their parents.
@@tompatierno5606 Exodus 20:5: "You shall neither prostrate yourself before them nor worship them, for I, the Lord, your God, am a zealous God, Who visits the iniquity of the fathers upon the sons, upon the third and the fourth generation of those who hate Me." He does not punish those who repent.
@@hrvatskinoahid1048 There is nothing in that verse which indicates an acceptance of repentance.
@@squiddwizzard8850 As the Targum Onkelos paraphrases: when the sons continue to sin following their fathers, i.e., when they cling to their fathers’ deeds.
Dan is a Satan to apologists
He's more of a "sahTAHN" than an all-encompassing endboss :)
Dan is Michael Corleone, and apologists are the heads of the 5 Families. And we all know how that turned out. 😁
@@Noneya5555 That took a dark turn, heh.
If during the Baptismal Rites, the priest starts debating you about the plural stem of the Hebrew-inspired middle name of your godson, then you should probably move on to the Last Rites ;)
@@michaelmaloskyjr Of course, I meant it figuratively. 😂
This apologist does own a sweater, so, you know, instant cred. So much harm comes from unfounded dogma. No one is separated from God/creator in spite of a story and a man in a sweater speaking on camera in front of books.
I saw the thumbnail of this and thought for a second that the words, “Presupposing the historicity” were printed on The Thing t-shirt.
Okay I'm going to make myself a shirt that says "presupposing the historicity" now.
Man, Apophis was one of my fave Stargate SG-1 baddies!
I could be wrong about this, but if I recall the dates correctly, I don't think they line up for having Apophis being a major part of Egyptian religion when proto-archaic Judaism was absorbing whatever elements it borrowed.
The Hebrews were most likely in Egypt from sometime in the second intermediate period until roughly the middle of the New Kingdom so from 3800 to 2500 years ago give or take. This was well after the Akhenaten affair which profoundly influenced the nature of Egyptian solar worship even though it was largely discarded as heresy by the time of King Tut.
Apep/Apophis IIRC is mostly a figure from the Heliopolitan period of the Middle Kingdom going back to about 4000 to 3800 years ago.
Beyond any textual evidence it doesn't make much more sense from a chronological perspective than the idea that Joseph was responsible for building the pyramids (which are even older and further away in time).
Hey Dan, in the tradition I grew up in, the book of Job was also supposed to have been written by Moses. Where did this tradition of authorship emerge?
That said, it is very common in many cultures to name people after the place that they came from or what they did, or what they were noted for. These did not necessarilty jive with reality. If you are named Smith is that absolute evidence that you had a goldsmith or blacksmith in your family?? Or Jesus of Nazareth, or Edward the Confessor, or William the Conqueror? Sometimes the family or tribal name is descriptive, and sometimes it is not.
Nations in antiquity only slowly developed a geographical identity. This changed over time due to wars, marriages of nobles, soverigns, etc. The Saxons for example were a tribe of no particular location, but had a common language and set of customs. If you look for a nation called "Saxony' over time, it jumps over the map quite a bit.
If you use the term "mouse', it doesn't say much about the type of mouse. You can tell that it is a mammal, but what type of mammal? If you use the qualifier "marsupial" mouse then you know more specifics about its biology. If you use the name Dasyuridae, then you know it is a marsupial mouse located in Austrlaia and new Zealand, with 71 extant species divided into 17 genera. You already know something about its position on the phylogenetic tree [sorry Darwin, I meant tangled bank! :-) ]. You know something about its relationship to other organisms, its evolution, biology, its antiquity as a species, etc, etc. All from a few seconds in a search engine. That can lead to even more detail about that humble mouse.
A sepent or snake in an ancient text? In what context or meaning was it used? Australian indigenous nations knew all about platypuses and kangaroos. Well, not everything, and they did have myths about things.
The Waugal [various spellings] is a snake or rainbow serpent recognised by Noongar [WA] as the giver of life, maintaining all fresh water sources.
Sure, all these myths and traditions have immense cultural and historical value. And it is good to debunk inaccuracies, inconstancies, and bad faith actors.
And it is all very fascinating. Up to a point.
But nearly all knowledge in antiquity was based on the relative survival value of Type One verses Type Two errors. It was safer to assume from a survival perspective that the ruslting bush contained a dangerous predator, and not simply the wind making the bushes move. Most of the time it WAS just the wind, but the cost of just assuming it WAS the wind was death.
This lead to the personification of "good' and "evil". "Human tactical paranoia", if you will. Justified if you want to survive, but getting to understand nature, not so much. So the poor old sepent gets blamed for many things, "guilty" or not.
So the real question is not the misuse or proper use as a sepent being the personification of evil or not, the whole things got off track by the personification of good and evil to begin with! Sure, a predator does have an "agenda" [to survive like everything else] but giving agency or intent to lightning, etc is a little over-much.
Lightning CAN kill you, but implying intent or purpose, is a non-starter.
Antiquity is riddled with this type of magical thinking. Yes, of course, this is all with the benefit of hindsight. I am not implying that the ancients were stupid, or anything like that.
But it is exhausting in some ways. many of these ideas of antiquity have been debunked over and over, and yet people demand we respect these ideas, simply because of popularity or age.
And when we don't, we are attacking religion. Or worse, accused of an ad hominem!
And many of these ideas, still perpetuated, have real-world harmful effects.
You can do a bonza lierally review of Orwell's "1984", and note the skills of the narrator, the characters in the plot, etc, etc. But beyond that, what is the point? Some folks will read it as a horrifying salutary tale, and others will use it as a playbook for a totalitarian state!
The video starts out as refutation of a video creator but turns into a more interesting telling of mythological snakes, which deserve their own video. I think the video creator isn't wrong to associate the snake in the Garden of Eden with disorder and chaos.
2:19 “If they bother to actually *read* anything from ancient civilizations, they would know,” … *[what only one ancient text says.]*
How would you know what Exodus says by reading the Book of the Dead or the Cyrus Cylinder? Or better yet, the letters from the *Elephantine colony,* where Judahites seemed to have no concept of Moses or the Exodus?
So a Satan is a Devil's Advocate 🤔
"Dan made a video about me? Uh oh."
Of all the things I’ve heard being told was “the serpent”, the nope rope from ancient Egyptian mythology is a first for me. Lol.
Here's the thing...
Hahahaha, I didn't catch that on my own
My question always is, does Satan have legs? Most of the depictions of Satan in Christian art provides him with lets. He’s usually talked about in Christian literature as having legs. But the one defining feature of the snake from the garden of Eden is it had its legs taken away, and what’s more it was cursed by god themselve to slither on its belly for the rest of time. If the snake was Satan then the whole not having legs and only being able to move around on his belly would be pretty notable features of Satan I would have thought. On the other hand, there are things that are still to this day famous for not having legs and moving around on their belly, snakes
Thank you.
Do these people ever reply back to you? Apologizing for their misinterpretations?
I expect that they are more likely to double down on their misinterpretation and misconception.
@@nates9029 I bet you’re exactly right.
That shirt is litty. Or is it lit? You would know, Dan.
I just bought an Ishtar statue and she has a serpent on her. 😱
Another relevant work is Elaine Pagels's _The Origin of Satan_.
I thought I was already subbed... 🤦🏻♀️
I am now 😊😊
*Yahweh raises satan*
In 1 Kings 11:14, 2nd? earliest^ use of the word _satan,_ Yahweh raised Hadad as a _satan_ against Shlomoh (Solomon). It just means adversary or something similar.
^2nd earliest to 1 Samuel 29:4? I’m going by my amateur understanding of which books/chapters were written first.
Most uses of the word are probably post-Exile, in Job and Zechariah
Hello there! ✌️
Do you know of any academic resources that pools together the idea of a "primeval serpent"? It feels like another common thread across many religions and mythologies between Norse Mythology and Jörmungandr and the Bible and the snake in the garden of Eden, plus Baal and Leviathan and how it connects to YHWH along with it existing in ancient Sumerian traditions.
What would we expect of a people living in the Levant? It is a land bridge between continents. It is a middle ground between warring superpowers at different times. The wide-ranging, merchant Phoenicians would leave some effect. Symbols and myths from the Assyrians, Egyptians, Greeks, and more would work their way into the mythology and symbols of Israelite culture after a few generations of mixing business, government, and families. After Jesus, the same assimilation of cultural symbols continues as Christianity reaches out to the gentile world: Roman household gods are replaced by patron saints, shamrocks symbolize the Trinity, a Celtic symbol for the sun god becomes a crucifix, lunar calendar is replaced by solar calendar, and more changes. The symbols and myths become as important as the possible historical truths in the Bible and in some cases, even more important. Judeo-Christian history is nothing but years of cultural changes, tying itself to different versions of perceived historical fact whether or not it was a "fact", under the title of "faith."
The arrogance of this type of content creators combined with their evident lack of knowledge, presented with such unwarranted confidence, makes it hard to watch these videos. The only consolation is that Dan will appear after a moment to set the record straight.
Apophis... 2029...
What would have happened if Eve hadn't eaten the fruit? Would her and Adam still be in the garden?
The "trickster" archetype actions caused Adam and Eve to be banished from the Garden and to begin to reproduce.
Also, the murderous Cain and his descendants invented cities, metallurgy, and music.
Just food for thought. 😊
Isn't apophis (great serpent) an enemy of Ra (the sun god)??
Yep. He tries to eat Ra every night but is ultimately foiled in the end.
@@solidstorm6129 Thanks! 😊
@@Jin420 you’re welcome. 😊
Nope. Apophis is best known by any fan of Stargate SG1
Well, I guess if you're going to be dogmatic you might as well be naive about it.
The Tanakh in Ezekiel 28:11-19 and Isaiah 14:3-20 speak of this figure the King of Tyrus and the King of Babylon Hilel (Lucifer). They speak about how these figures were cast down to the earth because of their sin of pride and wanting to be equal with God, whom once being in the presence of God as a minister lost those privileges because of blasphemy and apostasy. These figures are one and who is the serpent in the Garden of Eden aka Hilel as he was formerly called but now is he the accuser or adversary/ha'satan.
The reason for the titles "the king of Tyrus" and "Babylon" is to poetically speak to the real ruler of the dominant world power, which in every case has a divine entity behind it who is the real governor; e.g. with Ysra'el it is YHWH but with the rest of the heathens it is Satan (another e.g. Daniel 10:12,13 ). We see this knowledge portrayed in the NT with Paul, John and in the Gospels that Satan has authority and rules this world via the dominant world powers giving them their power; this authority has been given to him by God (2 Cor 4:3,4, Eph 2:2, Rev 2:13, Rev 13:14, Luk 4:4-8, Mat 4:8-10).
Ezekiel describes this King of Tyrus to be in the garden of Eden but not only that, he walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire, in the holy mountain of God in the presence of God, we know this is not talking about a mortal Phoenician King. These are describing celestial locations as does Isaiah 14 describing this person wanting to rise above the stars of God, setting their throne in the mount of the congregation in the sides of the north, above the heights of the clouds. It is evident that the Israelites according to the Holy Prophets knew who that serpent was in the Garden of Eden, he was Hilel who became the Satan not just a satan which anyone can be in a certain context as an adversary towards someone. So that's why we see the NT shake hands with the OT (as they always do) in the book of Revelation ch.12 where John an Israelite familiar with the Tanakah the Holy Scriptures calls Satan the dragon, the devil, that old serpent who was cast out of heaven as do the prophets say. He's called the accuser of the brethren, a role we see him play in the book of Job. We also see Michael the Archangel fighting against this dragon/serpent as we see in Daniel 10:12,13 but under the title the prince of Persia. Celestial beings would not be fighting mortals who would be no match.
Revelation 12 and 20 shake hands with the prophecies of Isaiah and Ezekiel showing how this Satan is going to be cast down and become the scorn of the earth in his demise mocked by the inhabitants of the earth. Satan was cast down the first time out of heaven, and he is going to be cast down into the bottomless pit bound for 1000 years, then finally cast into the lake of fire tormented for eternity.
So no, Satan is not some new concept added later on into the Bible as a character in the Greco-Roman times, it was already known who he was. Again it must be reiterated as also is done by many true Biblical Christian Scholars; your "Academic Consensus" is not the sound proof end all and be all of Biblical Schlorship and interpretation because you scoff at the Word of God thinking it to be but myths and tales. God has allowed you to be blinded by the prince of this world to not see the Bible for what it truly is because of your unbelief. Repent and ask God for eye salve that you may truly see His word and the eternal life He has to offer you, the blessedness of the Gospel, the great love and mercy He has to impart on those that love Him.
Isaiah 56:1,2
Psalms 119:1,2
Jeremiah 29:12,13
2 Thessalonians 2:9-12
Revelation 3:17-22
John 7:38
John 11:26
Romans 6:22,23
1 Corinthians 2:9
Psalms 103:17,18
Satan is an angel and does not rule anything.
I don't think the idea is Greco-Roman-it's actually late medieval. There's no need to assume that any two mentions of a devil in the new testament are in fact referring to the same persona
It isn't illegitimate - conversely - to interpret the talking "snake" as a deity resident in the Garden (the home of gods) who wanted to cause a rift between the Most High & the mere mortals who had been exalted to the god-like status of living in the garden (due to jealousy of the fact that mere mortals were being exalted to the status of deity like him; this is indirectly reflected in Islamic/Jewish traditions about Adam). It's even further probable (as Michael Heiser points out) that the garden of Eden's "serpent" might be connected to a Canaanite myth reflected in Ezekiel in which a deity is said to have lost a previous glory & is banished to the underworld ("erets" in Hebrew; although it's not the more conventional word Sheol). The snake deity was probably "snake-like" in partial anatomy alone. Alternatively, it may never have had a snake-like anatomy, but was only called a snake as a wordplay on the "Shining One" hebrew root "nhs" (the double meaning of "shining" & "snake"). Therefore, it can be correct that there's a slight prejudice in scholarship against finding "satan-ish traditions" in the Garden story, especially against connecting this "serpent" to the character that is often misinterpreted as Adam in Ezekiel
Dan, do you have a PO Box, you should really read my book? The Serpent is the progenitor comet and its remains making up The Taurid Meteor Stream as the Superbolide in our world creating chaos. In the book I'm just finishing up, The Zoda, the author talks about a number of people in agreement that there was a war with the cosmic serpent before Creation. This would be The Younger Dryas Impacts Theory, and the Deluge being the Space Fall into the Indian Ocean off Madagascar ~4200 thousand years ago creating the chevron tsunami evidence of the area. I find it amazing that no one will bother to look at something I have been working on since we first stepped on the Moon. It is the reason that the number seven is within most of the world's ancient mythology, plus the texts describe, in detail, this inner solar system phenomena. The darkness is not diurnal, nor seasonal, it is about Impact Winter for long periods of time.
Chevron 7, LOCKED!
@@alanb8884👏👏👏
@@alanb8884 👏👏👏
@@alanb8884 How is it that people can understand convoluted Science Fiction, yet can not venture this concept. The Cover-er is the atmospheric loading of the planet, the Cherub; Seraphim; Shechinah, covering the Ark of our world that originated from the Pleiades.
@@DavidAlastairHayden Ya know it is very similar to that film, when everybody starts leaving the room during Daniel Jackson's presentation. And when he draws the Eye of Ra in the sand to which the leader immediately obfuscates it. Or when he is correcting the translation on the chalkboard and remarks, "Who the Hell translated this?" The Star Gate is The Golden Gate of the Ecliptic, the Pleiades, the radiant of the Taurids, the Halloween Fireballs. The Real New Years!
The smugness is such a turn-off. Urgh.
Really interesting - and telling - how so many dogmas (with the exception of Buddhism) depend on blind acceptance, ignorance and fear, and exploits deception and hatred of the other. And yet the monotheistic dogma has as it's foundation a loving, tolerant parent deity.
No, that's not hypocritical at all. Smh...
Janism is the best religion. It is the only religion where its adherants become less dangerous the more fanatical they become.
@@emptyhand777."Best religion" is an oxymoron, like "apologist scholar". 🤣
@@Noneya5555 - I should have said least poisonous.
@@emptyhand777 That sounds more accurately descriptive. 😊
Revelation 12:9
Titus 1:14 explains it all. The bible (and all other forms of mind control) put the blames on others.
No. It was Jesus. Two Gardens and a Snake - What Really Happened in the Garden of Eden? th-cam.com/video/UoEorNACwmA/w-d-xo.html
Why are all of these people always so smug? Dan just gives facts about ancient writings and civilizations and these guys are always so performative. It seems like the more uneducated they are the more confidence they have...see also Ken Hamm.
Wait, when he said "Egyptian refugees" he's referring to the Jews in Exodus? This is kinda elucidating his views on slavery. Yikes
If your book has been sifted through countless unknown authors, editors, and redactors, analyzed by countless scholars and church leaders, and also requires some sort of concordance to arrive at countless interpretations of its meaning, maybe your book has some issues of credibility.
Jewish scholars do not use your interpretive framework or your terminology. The oral Torah has thirteen rules for exegesis. You can call it data, dogma, presupposition or something else entirely. That being said, the serpent from the Garden of Eden has nothing to do with Apophis.
And what does the oral Torah have to do with academic consensus and study?
@@solidstorm6129 With the study of the written Torah? Absolutely everything.
@@hrvatskinoahid1048 how so? Are we required to follow the supposed thirteen rules for exegesis? Even if we’re not Jewish? Or do they line up exactly with scholarly and academic consensus?
@@solidstorm6129 Gentiles are required to follow the 7 Noahide laws. It is not within their purview to lecture Jews on their own holy book.
@@hrvatskinoahid1048 uh huh. Sure. Now, what exactly does following the laws of noah have to do with academic consensus and study of the book of Genesis? And who are you to say we have to follow the laws anyway?
Solar barque or bark? 🤔
I do feel spritually connected to this creator. I, as well, use to sit in front of a book case when I’m on video calls to make myself appear more learned.
I was trying to make out the books he has. The ones I can make out are fiction authors like Ann Rice and Ken Follett. He also has some Nancy Drew or Hardy Boys books (the yellow ones on the left) & a Spanish dictionary. 🤭
Well, the word serpo means "winded instrument" which could be "a voice". The serpent is the representation of our desire. The snake dates back to Hindu were desire is represented by the serpent because the way a serpent kills is primarily strangulation. This is to say that our desires can strangle our well being. This same symbol is replaced later by the noose as representative of the same concept of the restrictive nature of desire. In that symbol it is usually shown as the noose is cut free and hangs down around the neck to represent a person has freed themselves of desires (specifically the desire to live forever, so therefore free of the restriction of the knowledge of your own death). Again, the Bible is not a read through historical event, it is an explanation of the evolution of consciousness, at the same time it is explaining the development of a singular human individual, because the patterns of each are the same.
The inclusion of the responded to video by the irritating people makes the video unappealing .
Unfortunately Prof. McCellan has no choice but to parse his rebuttals and explanations with the original creator's mocking, laughing, high-pitched "evil" cartoon villain voice&face. No offense to him ;)
Casual apologetic religion is a growth enterprise, whether filling mega churches or carving out a niche in the apologetic hysteria stream archipelago (like the person I described above with multiple adjectives).
And almost none of them are willing/capable of undergoing the enormous sacrifice of time, money and intellectual grind to learn Hebrew/Greek/Coptic et. al. while defending a dissertation, publishing under deadlines and reading tome after tome -- like our host creator.
@@michaelmaloskyjrthat was no educated Christian Apologists: typical of who Dan debunks so I would also see his statements as erroneous but" let's see it" Dan : try debunking an actual Biblical Scholar like Dr.Michael S.Heiser.
@davidjanbaz7728 "[Dan] try debunking an actual Biblical scholar like Dr. Michael S. Heiser."
If you heard and understood Prof. McCellan's oft-stated goals: "To bring Biblical scholarship into the public forum" and "combat popular misconceptions and disinformation" then you'll know his YT shorts take on public creators from TikTok and YT who often wade into Scriptural interpretation waters way over their heads.
Their claims range from the conspiratorial to the ridiculous to outright deceit to honest mistakes.
Putting aside the fact that Evangelical OT scholar Dr. Michael S. Heiser is dead, why specifically HERE in this post did you name drop? I'm sensing a non-sequitur here, as if you're implying Prof. Dan should "pick on somebody his own size," which if so, you completely miss the point of Prof Dan's side mission here.
Besides if Dr. Heiser was still alive, true Biblical scholars publish their arguments in journals to which they're rebutted in those same journals.
See how that works?
If it's true Dr. Heiser truly believes there was a historical, physical worldwide flood event wiping out the entire geological column, after which all life began again from the survivors riding in an ark 5,000 years ago -- well, you absolutely don't need Dan to ridiculously and thoroughly debunk that a million times over, do you?
@@davidjanbaz7728 "Dan: try debunking an actual Biblical scholar like Dr. Michael S. Heiser"
So to be clear, you are aware of Prof Dan's "side mission" here in YT? The one he oft repeats about "bringing Biblical scholarship into the public forum" and countering "disinformation and misinformation" promoted by some TikTok/YT creators?
And putting aside for a moment that Evangelical OT scholar Dr Michael S. Heiser is dead, why exactly did you name drop here, in this specific post? Was there some Dr. Heiser scholarship that could illuminate this issue?
Or is this some kind of non-sequitur, "pick on somebody your own size, Dan" kind of tossed out comment? If that's the case, you completely misunderstand (sadly) Prof. Dan's goal here.
Besides if there was a scholarly argument Dr. McCellan had with Dr. Heiser, then where you think that goes?
If you guessed a scholarly journal where they can publish and rebut each other, you guessed correctly :)
Lastly, since Dr. Heiser had many paranormal beliefs about Nephilium and a historical, physical flood event wiping out all life on Earth, save a few survivors on an ark 5,000 yrs ago -- well, I'm not sure Prof. Dan has anything to debunk there which hasn't already been ridiculously and thoroughly invalidated a million times over.
Stop! Stop! He's already dead!!! 😭
I dunno; is Apophis serving all the genders while looking ineffably hot and stylish? 🐍🍎🕶💅
Is this like nerds arguing over Game of Thrones fan theories?
Unfortunately there are hundreds and hundreds of millions of people fully invested in the "lore" for thousands of years influencing almost every facet of JudeoChristian cultures and non (think -- war, trade, tech, science, etc.) It's a wildly connected nexus of influences.
Juuust a little different from a short-lived, disappointing TV series that gets quickly replaced by yet another in an already disposable consumer entertainment market.
Stop pushing false testimony on TH-cam dude
Also, you can site "consensus" all day. That in and of itself has absolutely no value to whether they are right or wrong. If you follow the bouncing ball, the vast majority of what we call "scientifically known" is still simply theory. Therefore scientific consensus is meaninglessness. You want to say that for the pure fact that everyone agrees on something, that in and of itself makes it correct. If the world really worked like this we would still have models of our solar system with earth at the center. The claim of "academic consensus" has absolutely no meaning or value to the truth. We don't dictate truth based on popular opinion. Which in reality, no "academic consensus" can prove their theories, so therefore it is simply "a majority OPINION". Their interpretation of the Bible is a theory like any other mystery. There is nothing to say that their theories are correct, but just that they are popular.
Consensus doesn't mean nothing though, now does it? At the very least it means that people who are educated more or less agree on something. And it's true that consensus doesn't make reality, but it's also true that data is what leads to consensus.
Your example of the geocentric picture of the universe is actually a great way to show my point. It wasn't like there was a geocentric theory for the universe which had universal consensus. In fact, it was understood to be a theory, and it succeeded in explaining some of the data, but it also failed to explain other data, which is why a heliocentric theory gathered more support.
I think where these arguments fall apart and where people get confused is they're familiar with everything in terms of a story, but that's not how it actually happened and the truth was a much more realistic process.
Anyways, the Hebrew word for 'satan' not actually connecting the serpent in any way (and in fact only being used twice in the Torah) is pretty damning evidence, and from that it becomes clear how a 'consensus' can actually be formed because I don't think anyone who knows anything thinks otherwise.
Uh....
We no longer believe everything revolves around the earth because of.....
ACADEMIC CONSENSUS!!!!
@@asimpletune so that's why they threw Galileo in jail? Open your eyes sheep.
@@langreeves6419 no it was proven.
@chumpchangechamp3643 the data was accepted as correct by enough people....a consensus of people