I taught history for more than 30 years. Students often mistook a scholar's summary of current historiographic ideas as the position of the scholar. They also frequently jumped to the conclusion that if I assigned a reading, I automatically agreed with the author.
I might have been one of those types of students. I was so used to church dogmatism and pastors seeding the congregation with books that supported whatever viewpoint they wanted their church to believe and then demanding that we believe it that I couldn’t critically think to save my life. Sorry.
@@davidross2004 If you have learned that you were propagrandised, no worries. The first victims of groomers (and apologists are groomers) are the adults.
Congrats Dan, you have been responding to William Lane Craig! (“Defenders Podcast: Series 2 > Doctrine of Creation (Part 1)”, August 19, 2012 and “Series 3 > Doctrine of Creation (Part 1): Creatio Ex Nihilo” June 04, 2018; there may be other sources for the quotes he is reading.)
Ah, thanks for recognizing where that was from. I wasn't coming up with anything. It still sounds like either AI or someone else summarizing the argument for this creator, but at least that confirms it's being mediated by someone else who doesn't really know what they're talking about.
@@maklelanwait a sec, did you just imply that Bill Craig doesn't know what he is talking about? I'll have you know that if there is just one chance in a MILLION that low bar Bill is true, it's worth believing!
The performative nature of the source creator speaks volumes about their degree of integrity and seriousness. I take him as seriously as he argues, which is to say not at all.
Even if I don't agree with Dan in a lot of things (mainly because of my learned dogmatism) I can certainly recognize a "good faith" dialogue, and sadly MANY of my fellow believers CAN'T maintain a good faith argumentation, the dogma inside of us gets the best(worst) of us! that being said, I love your videos Dan! keep up the great work!
Regardless of what point he’s trying to make I find it a very interesting rhetorical strategy to present your argument with the diction and a tone of voice that makes you sound like you’re one bad day away from becoming a Batman villain.
It's the typical "he who argues the loudest and/or the longest... wins" BS that you see from many on the internet. They think they win if they get the last word in. It's really sad.
5:28 "Ok, ok, we're going to be alright." Man, that sounds like he was panicking until he found some tripe that reinforced his dogma. Instead of just trying to best understand the data.
That's what Dan is doing. "Bereshit bara Elohim" means "At first God created". To get Dan's version, you MUST change the verb to "bro". Without that, he is talking nonsense Hebrew, and it's painfully obvious to any speaker of Hebrew.
But he is teaching nonsense. "Bereshit bara Elohim" means "At first God created". To get Dan's interpretation, you MUST change the pronunciation of the word "bara" to "bro" instead. This is obvious to all Hebrew speakers.
@@djara704 I speak Hebrew dude. I am not confused on this. I am reporting the "general consensus" to you, Dan is making a mistake caused by lack of fluency.
@@annaclarafenyo8185 your argument makes no sense. So your “general consensus” is different than Dan’s because Dan is not fluent. His lack of fluency would not change what the general consensus is and thus has no bearing. But feel free to make a video call him out. I do not have the enterprise to argue with you but I did read some of the papers he presented. Lastly trust me bro is not a good argument.
@@annaclarafenyo8185 pretends? Well, aren’t you edgy and clever. You don’t think he knows Hebrew? Are all the scholars he cites somehow also ignorant of Hebrew? And no one as good as you has responded and pointed out the error? As a non speaker myself, I don’t have an opinion on the subject.
@@SpaceLordof75 If you don't speak Hebrew, perhaps it's best you don't express an opinion until you consult someone who does. Dan is simply wrong on this issue, and it's obvious.
@@annaclarafenyo8185 read my response again. You said Dan is pretending to know Hebrew, and that he’s wrong. I didn’t say he was right. By association, it seems to me you’re saying the others he cites as agreeing with him are wrong. I didn’t state my opinion at all. In fact, I explicitly said I don’t have a position on the issue because I don’t know Hebrew at all. Yet you told me to butt out. A really strange, dismissive non response there.
Also, Dan, you seem like a lovely man, but after howling, your "You are not good at this" gave me flashbacks to teachers giving me the "You can do better, C-" look.
In that last third there was a moment I felt almost relieved, seeing the sober “I can’t keep this up anymore,” like he was going to drop the irritating persona and speak directly. But instead, it went into whatever that was. Yikes.
Expertise takes a long time to build and most aren't investing the years of education and practice it takes. Thanks for the work you do. If you'd been around 15 years ago I could have avoided the detour through apologetics while deconstructing.
I blame ChatGPT, or whichever AI the search engine he 'asked', for coming up with that particular argument. The original video reads a bit like a Little League baseball player spiking the end zone with the ball. [Yeah, that simile is intentional].
That dude was funny, but only because he was so convinced of having catched you in error, and well, having a several decades old book to make the case really was funny too. I just love your responses and the work you do.. One of you funniest videos, and yet we always learn so much.. .And good you clarified on inspired philosophie, he seems just very offended he doesnt have any good arguments.
Ya, these people aren't trying to have an intelligent conversation. They're just rage-baiting for views... Just the manner in which he presents is obvious, that he's just doing it for the views. Barely a coherent thought was put out...
the true power of the hulk smash is that while it's aimed at one person, it can reverberate through someone else. The blind loyalty of apologism is a fascinating thing. I truly don't understand how they can keep up their facade when it's so competently and utterly demolished. I guess their egos won;t let them admit they're wrong.
Love this! Not sure why it's so hard for people to change their current model of understanding when presented with new data, rather than "sweating" while trying to figure out how to force new data to fit into their current model. Blows my mind!
Apologists always rely on sources that are decades old. Not only do they more often shore up their beliefs, but they also increase the chance that someone in the audience heard of the person. It's literally an anti-functional epistemology.
What do you thing changes in the biblical Hebrew language that new is better then old? there's no new textual discovery this ist a science, people just come up with new opinions then realize that these argument go back a thousand years like the argument in this video, people just want to feel important amd smart
@@joestupid7810 Greater understanding of original context, greater understanding of cultural flows and material, greater understanding of how people deploy language and linguistic intent... It's really silly to think that linguistics is a dead field.
@@joestupid7810 What do you define as "evidence-based"? Because Dan cites sources and shows detailed contextual reasons to take that reading. He doesn't even get into the really obvious point here which is that *if you keep reading* the text talks about the waters and the Earth as things that God can "come upon" and interact with. This *can't* be the first moment of creation. One could be intellectually consistent and say that the true first act of creation, of creation ex nihilo, was earlier, but Genesis 1 does not read that way, plain and simple. And why lead with a bad argument?
I don't know who your opponent argumentator, if that's the proper phrase, is but he is infinitely painful to watch. You have far more patience than do I.
@@rainbowkrampus A very quick lookup of "interlocutor" yielded this: "a person who takes part in a dialogue or conversation." That definition, at least, is not applicable to what the TH-camr is doing. Argumentator is a word that is not standard but should be - it turned a good TH-cam comment into a great TH-cam comment.
@@ballasog Dialogue: 1. A conversation between two or more people. 2. A discussion of positions or beliefs, especially between groups to resolve a disagreement. Interlocutor: A person who takes part in a dialogue or conversation. Note; nothing about dialogue requires that the participants be synchronous in time nor that one party necessarily has knowledge of the other nor that one party even be a person. So, one can be in dialogue with a cultural context or genre conceit as much as one can be in dialogue with a long dead philosopher or a hypothetical person as much as one can be in dialogue with someone through written messages or face to face. To bring it out of the realm of the abstract, our apologist friend and Dan here are both engaging in a discussion of their positions in this scenario we have seen unfold. And they are both persons engaging in a dialogue. So, interlocutor is the correct term which describes both of them.
@@rainbowkrampus I'm only seeing it from Dan. From Mr. Freakazoid I'm seeing him backing into his own end zone, spiking the ball, and doing an end zone dance.
Wow. While I deeply & truly hope that the guy one day come to understand how wrong he is, and how patiently Dan explained things to him, I feel sorry for him if he does. The level of overdramatized cringe is so off the charts, he’s going to die of embarrassment.
Unfortunately, although he is overdramatic and dogmatic, he isn't wrong on this particular point, Dan is. In order to interpret the text as "In the beginning of God's creation...", you need to change the verb "bara" to "bro". There is no other way to make the interpretation work.
@@annaclarafenyo8185 Dan explains why that is wrong in rather excruciating detail. However, I do not speak Hebrew, so I am not qualified to judge. That said, I listen to Dan and to the other guy, and the other guy is clearly at least as ignorant of Hebrew as I am, and his attempts at “scholarship” are so laughable, I see no reason to believe either him or you.
@@CharlesPayet Except I DO speak Hebrew, fluently, and I know for a fact that Dan is incorrect on this point. The commentators who read Gen 1:1 as "In the beginning of God's creation of the sky and the Earth..." (at least, the one who speaks Hebrew fluently, which was Rashi) all change the verb from "bara" (created) to "bro" (the act of creation).. It's a plausible change because it's the same spelling, just with a different pronunciation. I listened to Dan's analysis on this point, he never addresses the verb "bara", instead, focusing on the irrelevant "bereshit". I also agree the creation depicted isn't ex-nihilo, but the wording of the first verse reads "In the beginning God created the sky and the Earth" just as a point of obvious Hebrew, unless you change the verb to bro. This is why I lost all respect for Dan's Hebrew skills.
@@annaclarafenyo8185 then go get published in a peer-reviewed journal, and I’ll look forward to you overturning the apparent scholarly consensus, since you aren’t just challenging Dan’s knowledge of Hebrew, but most scholars’ interpretation of those verses. Dan provides citations to support his positions. Or you could even make a response video to Dan with that argument and ask him to respond. For the moment, I have no reason to believe you besides you saying, “Trust me, bro, I know what I’m talking about.”
@@CharlesPayet Dan is misrepresenting scholarly consensus. What I told you is WAY too obvious to publish. The scholarly consensus is that it could be "bara" or it could be "bro". But if it is 'bara", then it's "God created", and if it's "bro" then it is "of God's creation". That's just Hebrew 101, it doesn't deserve even a footnote in an article. Just Dan doesn't seem to know it.
Dan, is there any relationship between the preexisting chaotic waters of Genesis 1:1-2, and how God divides to water to create the universe, and the battle of Baal and Yamm as described in the Ugaritic texts? Thanks (:
Not at all an expert, but I've heard it said there is. It is interacting with the idea of created order being established by violent battle with the chaos dragon. In Genesis God is so powerful chaos isn't anything like a threat that needs to be defeated for him to perform his work.
This is the default understanding: both share the "conquering primordial water" motif, except that Genesis 1 intentionally de-personifies the water (just as it does the lights) and depicts Yahweh as the unquestioned ruler; the Deep doesn't even put up a fight, but yields to his power. The theme of "splitting" (or "dividing") the cosmic Deep is echoed across a lot of psalms and is expressed in a variety of ways, similar to the recorded Ugaritic framework.
Thanks for the replies, @GeoffBosco and @AurorXZ. I thought that there might be a parallel between the two texts, since both Ugarit and Israel are Canaanite societies with ultimately Canaanite mythologies. Also, Baal and YWHW seem to be very similar. They are both warrior/storm gods. But you make a good point, which is that the sea/chaotic waters don’t put up much of a fight against the Genesis God 😂 whereas Baal seems to actually be fighting an equal!
If he wanted "payback" or whatever for Inspiring Philosophy, the best way to do that would have been to succeed where IP failed, by demonstrating how IP's argument was a good one. Instead he waited until he thought he had Dan close enough to a corner to lead him there and box him in, regarding a completely different subject. So, right from the start, your the mission of revenge is a failure. And then, he simply demonstrated that he's in over your head, which is exactly what IP showed the world during his debacle of a back-and-forth with Dan. And then the dancing and carrying-on at the end: why not just put a funny nose & big floppy shoes on and honk a horn? It had the same effect.
It dismays that people think that they can gain converts by calling those who disagree with them stupid. You are right. I do lack the training, experience and resources to competently debate you, but you do present your arguments in a way that makes me feel like my intelligence is being respected and you display more patience with many of the content creators you deal with than I would.
By the end I was concerned for the guy. He seems to be unwell. He was ranting about someone else being blocked and then he comes up with, "you have 9 days to reply". Or what? I really think he needs professional help.
ah yes it makes you look very intelligent arguing while sounding like you’re out of breath and stuttering the whole time that doesn’t at all make you look like you’re trying to be funny and failing
Dan, Dan, Dan . . . when will you learn . . . apologetics has zero to do with good faith and honesty but is more about lying to keep the cognitive dissonance at the lowest level possible to allow for peaceful sleep of the ignorance.
Oh, he knows. He’s talked about it numerous times. However, as a serious scholar and someone who truly cares about teaching, he’s targeting those people with doubts and questions who stay silent and watch/listen on the sidelines. The diehard apologists won’t hear a word he says, but the ones with doubts will see the difference between Dan and whoever that is. They’ll hear the difference in the information presented & know who’s serious and who isn’t. I doubt that apologists like that guy are capable of recognizing it, but the more they respond to scholars and ex-Christians, the more they alienate the questioners and increase the numbers of unbelievers.
Sad, I thought of the goal as to increase the number of thinkers rather than reduce the number of believers. Dan, after all, is a believer. Otherwise, I think your comment is spot-on and well-spoken.
So performing reading someone else's work _as an argument_ and pretending that you don't know what it says before you performed your reading is a really good way to a. misrepresent that person's argument, b. create an excuse for your misrepresentation of that argument, and c. manipulate the audience emotionally into treating your argument like some protagonist-driven narrative.
I'm wonder what would have happened if a prime Muhammad Ali had a boxing match against a 6 year old girl. For some reason, this video makes me wonder that.
It's sickening that on a platform where better and more meaningful understanding of the most cherished portions of some people's lives could be attained, we have clowning and performative hacks (who are somehow FOLLOWED for "insight", because they talk fast and can string along enough words that seem like they're saying the right things). How low is a life that the height of that life's output is using poorly cribbed notes to try and play gotcha with a scholar.
Well... at least he finally dropped the affectation and acknowledged what his actual concerns were here? I mean, they were stupid concerns. Imagine respecting Inspiring Philosophy in any capacity. But at least he's capable of demonstrating some kind of genuine personality, even if it is just belligerence.
When considering the scholarly consensus is not right but picking and choosing outdated scholarship to defend your point and misunderstanding it is the right way to go 🤦
Dude was in his element when he was trying to be ironically detached. Not sure why he'd try to be serious now. He's got to know the facts aren't on his side.
A few points here if I may, where is the idea that poetry uses contruct forms in the absolute? how would a word being poetry or narrative make it be in contruct or absolute. Do you have examples (that are not suspect) where in poetry that contruct forms become absolute? You cant even always know if a form is in construct unless you see the vowel pointings, or the context, because for example in the form זמרת, it looks like in contruct but in context is not, so there it has to be the ancient spelling of fem nouns. Also even in narrative you see ראשית sometimes in absolute, for example in Leviticus 2:12 קרבן ראשית תקריבו אתם (Here קרבן is in contruct to ראשית) And in Nehemiah 12:44 לַתרומות לָראשית ולַמעשרות with the article (although the Masoretes sometimes vocalize the article when there's not supposed to be one), Then there's more in poetry, which I don't see that it should make a difference, in Deuteronomy 33:21 וירא ראשית לו (literally: he saw the best for himself, NRSV: he chose the best for himself), and ofcoarse In Isaiah 46:10. The word אחרית which seems like a similar word, is the same idea. From the vocalization it seems to be in contruct, only because of 1 letter, plus we know the Masoretes were not great on vocalization in preposition consonants, although usually it's them vocalizing the article when they shouldn't. I just want to say I'm not a scholar, but I have read quite an amount on the ancient Hebrew language and the grammer. Its quite hard a lot of times to make definitive interpretations because the language is so vague sometimes and short. Sometimes there is no "right" interpretation, no matter how many people give their opinion on something. If you know any sources that speak on this, please lemme know cause I'm curious how people make such definitive claims in biblical Hebrew
good response Dan, just be careful of these techniques. Not necessarily your respondent however there is a new "game" that I don't understand but I see often online. I think it began in the video game culture and it has to do with capitalizing on the instinct of ours to justify, debate or simply "respond" to incorrect info or incorrect arguments. The "game" is to troll an individual.....the scoreboard is keystrokes. The more keystrokes, time or effort...or even the amount of time a person spends responding is the points. You see this in comment responses where arguments are lengthy responding to logical fallacies or incorrect information. The amount of time one can spend responding can seriously deter an unbeknownst honest debater or seeker from their actual work. In other words.....you can respond to such things indefinitely, all the while the game players are laughing together behind the scenes competing to see who can take up the most time or get the most attention...I have no clue why people do this online, but beware. I see it as a form of "trolling" and you can recognize it by blatantly incorrect info that sounds legit or extreme logical fallacies in arguments or even statements strongly stating the presenter is ignorant in an illogical way that "sounds" good. The person responding feels compelled, to the enjoyment of the "troller" to answer indefinitely, taking the honest debaters time, energy and focus. I'm not saying this person was doing that at all, only that this modern "game" that some engage in and enjoy, even as a group has caught me in its snare. They most often frequent theological, fundamentalist, political or sensitive platforms of social interest....yep. oh..they love Mormons and fundamentalist, relishing the format that honest arguments are plentiful. Crazy world we live in my friend. Peace. Bottom line...watch the time consumption and be on the lookout....Don't feed the bear comes to mind. The tell tale signs are the joy....indicating by laughing , belittlling and mocking the honest debater...what fun it is. The trap also is to get caught belittling the "troller" or stating one's position too strongly framing the honest responder as prideful arrogant angry and basically a jerk, to those who really don't dig into the arguments well. My recommendation for dealing with "trollers" such as that is to frame my answer way shorter than needed to make a point like..."do some homework, ty for your response" or "logical fallacy such and such" etc. That usually lets them know you know the game. We all must admit tho...human nature is funny regardless. Peace Dan.
All true, but the more bullshit that Dan responds to; by creating videos, the more clicks, and responses he receives which only helps his TH-cam channel grow, which puts a few extra $'s in his wallet. And of course, the secondary benefit is that most of us regularly listening to his channel are being exposed to the academic analysis of biblical texts.
@@What_If_We_Tried lol yes as long as he responds to good arguments. If he focuses on easily proven shallow arguments, like this one...his channel and content could become..less valuable but balancing attention to trivial things and deeper concepts will indeed grow his channel.
@@peterhook2258 Agreed, and I wish Dan would respond to the apologists of Orthodox Judaism, e.g., R' Tovia Singer, or Jews For Judaism Canada who also have TH-cam channels.
I think Dan probably has an Idea about who gave this creator the text he was reading supposedly about what Westermann said. I know I have a hunch. Who do we know who has an MO of aspiring to be a scholar and quoting scholars while actually misrepresenting what they are saying.
@@creamwobbly I was wrong. I apologize. When he made his caveat after the second clause instead of the first, I thought he was saying that the end of each clause rhymed ('line' and 'me'). I now realize that he meant 'nine' and 'line.' Clearly, I am not the only one who made this assumption by his adding the second clause. This is why I stick to my point that he should have said parallelism. If he meant rhyme and was only talking about the first clause, that would imply that the caveat does not apply to the second clause. That would mean that he was giving Dan an ultimatum. I don't think that was his rhetorical goal. If he had said 'parallelism' the caveat would have definitely covered both independent clauses. To put your mind at ease: A lot of people think that there need to be three instances or a word or phrase to qualify for parallelism, but that is a myth. Examples of two instance parallelism include: "easy come, easy go," "fool me once... fool me twice...," "no pain, no gain," etc. Again, for this reason, I still think he should have said "parallelism," even though, yes, he did rhyme. Thanks for checking me. I appreciate it.
You need to add a seizure warning to the beginning of this video. Between the parkinsonian camera shake and the Jokeresque facial expressions, I'm either epilectic or apoplectic. Either way, its gonna be an expensive trip to the ER. 😂😂😂
So, to anyone more familiar with apologist tiktok than I am, is IP one of the big names over there? Is that why the dude at the end is upset over IP being blocked?
It's weird to get so worked up about the grammar and syntax of a story that is demonstrably false. Like, in the end, either way you read it it's wrong--the Earth wasn't created in 6 days seven thousand years ago.
Ehh, it's been done. I do it myself from time to time, ya know, with the caveat that I'm not making false arguments when I do it. I've never seen it used in the apologetics circuit though. So that at least is novel.
wow...after watching this video to the end, its easy to see...the emotional outburst sure makes it look like an identified trolling episodes. And your continued engagement....is more points. Don't fallfor this.Laters.
Wow, this is sad, my mans watched the Rick and Morty heist episode and came up with this stunt. Little buddy is just so proud of himself, but doesn't seem to understand for the playing stupid shtick to work..... you actually have to be playing Stupid. But Yay! You did it! You showed IP that you are one of the good ones so there's that!
Sure fire evidence that he will *not* be arguing in good faith is the point in the video when he was saying, "We're going to be all right." If soneone is that personally invested in one particular perspective being correct, to the point that they would feel 'not all right' if the other perspective had more supportive evidence for it, they're not evaluating the evidence in good faith. Good faith implies actually trying to determine the most likely meaning - not predetermining which meaning you want to find before evaluating the evidence.
Great choice to just play a few solid minutes of his ridiculous antics before laying out you're about to block him too. That stuff is just a tactic to make engaging with them to be insufferable so no one with real expertise will hang around. That said, he's insufferable to even watch you respond to. Don't waste anymore time on him.
Dan. You have still not addressed my point. I totally agree that Genesis1v1-2 indicates/states that the earth, darkness, and the "waters" pre-existed the creation of light.....that prior to to "DAY 1" the earth and the "waters" already existed in some form. BUT .... this does not mean that these things were uncreated and therefore eternal. All it means is that the Scriptures do not say WHEN they were created. The Scriptures do not record the creation of the angelic beings - yet, nobody has ever suggested that angelic beings were uncreated.
If it doesn't say they're created then you have no data to suggest they were. And just like God was not created, again because of that lack of evidence, they're eternal.
@@Nick-o-time The Scriptures declare God to be the creator of "ALL THINGS" .....that includes the earth and anything else (e.g. angelic beings) that may have existed prior to Genesis 1v1-2. Psalm 148 says of the angels "for He (God) commanded and they were created" (v2 and 8). Now the Scriptures NOWHERE, explains when they were created. Was it to the creation of "the heavens and the earth"? IF not; when?
"Bara" doesn't mean "creation", it's just "created", the verb. You have to change it to "bro" to make the interpretation work. "Bereshit bara elohim" without any doubt, just means "First God created". WIthout the change to "Bereshit bro Elohim", this interpretation is simply incorrect. This is obvious to all Hebrew speakers.
Admits "I need this explained to me like I'm 15", still feels comfortable arguing with a guy with 4 degrees in the subject
"The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance -- it is the illusion of knowledge." Daniel J. Boorstin
I love it! I'll reuse this 😂
This guy performance is so painful.
Poor guy is confused and filming his abject lack of comprehension. 😢
Yeah it's terrible smh
Too cringe. I couldn't watch
he seems mentally unstable. Might be better not to engage
I taught history for more than 30 years. Students often mistook a scholar's summary of current historiographic ideas as the position of the scholar. They also frequently jumped to the conclusion that if I assigned a reading, I automatically agreed with the author.
Very true
True. Teachers of humanities and philosophy have the same experience. It's the lazy way
What a strange world it would be if teachers only assigned material that they agreed with.
I might have been one of those types of students. I was so used to church dogmatism and pastors seeding the congregation with books that supported whatever viewpoint they wanted their church to believe and then demanding that we believe it that I couldn’t critically think to save my life. Sorry.
@@davidross2004 If you have learned that you were propagrandised, no worries.
The first victims of groomers (and apologists are groomers) are the adults.
Oh, Dan got AAAALLLL the way under his skin, lol. Bro was melting down.
Congrats Dan, you have been responding to William Lane Craig! (“Defenders Podcast: Series 2 > Doctrine of Creation (Part 1)”, August 19, 2012 and “Series 3 > Doctrine of Creation (Part 1): Creatio Ex Nihilo” June 04, 2018; there may be other sources for the quotes he is reading.)
Ah, thanks for recognizing where that was from. I wasn't coming up with anything. It still sounds like either AI or someone else summarizing the argument for this creator, but at least that confirms it's being mediated by someone else who doesn't really know what they're talking about.
@@maklelanwait a sec, did you just imply that Bill Craig doesn't know what he is talking about? I'll have you know that if there is just one chance in a MILLION that low bar Bill is true, it's worth believing!
Yes, WL Craig hallucinates like an LLM, but with a will to do so.
I was gonna say he got it from ChatGPT. Thanks for the info crdrost
@@pererau what? how? you could say the same thing about every other religion.
The performative nature of the source creator speaks volumes about their degree of integrity and seriousness. I take him as seriously as he argues, which is to say not at all.
Even if I don't agree with Dan in a lot of things (mainly because of my learned dogmatism) I can certainly recognize a "good faith" dialogue, and sadly MANY of my fellow believers CAN'T maintain a good faith argumentation, the dogma inside of us gets the best(worst) of us! that being said, I love your videos Dan! keep up the great work!
That's a generous and encouraging comment.
Regardless of what point he’s trying to make I find it a very interesting rhetorical strategy to present your argument with the diction and a tone of voice that makes you sound like you’re one bad day away from becoming a Batman villain.
Argumentum ad Jokerum
I dunno, the way he started ranting about IP there at the end, he's less villain and more sidekick.
@@MindForgedManacle This is my original comment but shorter and better
@@MindForgedManacleGoogle translates this as "Argument to the Joker" 😂
@@VampirsTTGlike "el niño" is Spanish for "the niño"? 😉
“I was so annoying that my interlocutor blocked me” isn’t the flex they think it is.
It's the typical "he who argues the loudest and/or the longest... wins" BS that you see from many on the internet. They think they win if they get the last word in. It's really sad.
5:28 "Ok, ok, we're going to be alright." Man, that sounds like he was panicking until he found some tripe that reinforced his dogma. Instead of just trying to best understand the data.
That's what Dan is doing. "Bereshit bara Elohim" means "At first God created". To get Dan's version, you MUST change the verb to "bro". Without that, he is talking nonsense Hebrew, and it's painfully obvious to any speaker of Hebrew.
@@annaclarafenyo8185copying and pasting is about all you have going for you right now. ...
This is actual teaching and what actual teachers do for non experts. Thank you.
But he is teaching nonsense. "Bereshit bara Elohim" means "At first God created". To get Dan's interpretation, you MUST change the pronunciation of the word "bara" to "bro" instead. This is obvious to all Hebrew speakers.
@@annaclarafenyo8185 . I trust general consensus over one person online. Unless you state good sources your argument is nonsense.
@@djara704 I speak Hebrew dude. I am not confused on this. I am reporting the "general consensus" to you, Dan is making a mistake caused by lack of fluency.
@@creamwobbly It's too obvious to write a paper about. Dan is just wrong.
@@annaclarafenyo8185 your argument makes no sense. So your “general consensus” is different than Dan’s because Dan is not fluent. His lack of fluency would not change what the general consensus is and thus has no bearing. But feel free to make a video call him out. I do not have the enterprise to argue with you but I did read some of the papers he presented. Lastly trust me bro is not a good argument.
"The worst kind of arrogance is arrogance from ignorance"
It’s also the most common.
It's Dan who is ignorant here. It is shocking to me that a person who pretends to know Hebrew doesn't know what "bara" means.
@@annaclarafenyo8185 pretends?
Well, aren’t you edgy and clever.
You don’t think he knows Hebrew? Are all the scholars he cites somehow also ignorant of Hebrew? And no one as good as you has responded and pointed out the error?
As a non speaker myself, I don’t have an opinion on the subject.
@@SpaceLordof75 If you don't speak Hebrew, perhaps it's best you don't express an opinion until you consult someone who does. Dan is simply wrong on this issue, and it's obvious.
@@annaclarafenyo8185 read my response again.
You said Dan is pretending to know Hebrew, and that he’s wrong. I didn’t say he was right. By association, it seems to me you’re saying the others he cites as agreeing with him are wrong.
I didn’t state my opinion at all. In fact, I explicitly said I don’t have a position on the issue because I don’t know Hebrew at all. Yet you told me to butt out.
A really strange, dismissive non response there.
Dan's face every time it comes back from this overdramatic jack rabbit's shenanigans, kills me 😂
Also, Dan, you seem like a lovely man, but after howling, your "You are not good at this" gave me flashbacks to teachers giving me the "You can do better, C-" look.
In that last third there was a moment I felt almost relieved, seeing the sober “I can’t keep this up anymore,” like he was going to drop the irritating persona and speak directly. But instead, it went into whatever that was. Yikes.
I'm an apologist, and this guy's shenanigans even make MY head hurt.
History v Histrionics. There was only ever going to be one outcome.
Expertise takes a long time to build and most aren't investing the years of education and practice it takes. Thanks for the work you do. If you'd been around 15 years ago I could have avoided the detour through apologetics while deconstructing.
Same here.
mic drop. 🎉 that was gangsta. All jokes aside, that was seriously well done. Your scholarship is appreciated.
So this whole performance was just a "notice me, senpai" play for that other fool Dan refuted?
I blame ChatGPT, or whichever AI the search engine he 'asked', for coming up with that particular argument. The original video reads a bit like a Little League baseball player spiking the end zone with the ball. [Yeah, that simile is intentional].
That dude was funny, but only because he was so convinced of having catched you in error, and well, having a several decades old book to make the case really was funny too. I just love your responses and the work you do..
One of you funniest videos, and yet we always learn so much.. .And good you clarified on inspired philosophie, he seems just very offended he doesnt have any good arguments.
Melodramatically obtuse.
Great job Dan
❤
Ya, these people aren't trying to have an intelligent conversation. They're just rage-baiting for views...
Just the manner in which he presents is obvious, that he's just doing it for the views. Barely a coherent thought was put out...
Indeed
the true power of the hulk smash is that while it's aimed at one person, it can reverberate through someone else.
The blind loyalty of apologism is a fascinating thing. I truly don't understand how they can keep up their facade when it's so competently and utterly demolished. I guess their egos won;t let them admit they're wrong.
And IMHO, its like if "eternal fire" exist they are people who abide that
Love this! Not sure why it's so hard for people to change their current model of understanding when presented with new data, rather than "sweating" while trying to figure out how to force new data to fit into their current model.
Blows my mind!
Dan is gradually getting snarkier. "Lets put on our thinking caps..."
Very, very slowly.
Apologists always rely on sources that are decades old. Not only do they more often shore up their beliefs, but they also increase the chance that someone in the audience heard of the person. It's literally an anti-functional epistemology.
But dude didn’t even read the source material he was referencing. Just some summary from somewhere (that he didn’t credit).
What do you thing changes in the biblical Hebrew language that new is better then old? there's no new textual discovery this ist a science, people just come up with new opinions then realize that these argument go back a thousand years like the argument in this video, people just want to feel important amd smart
@@joestupid7810 Greater understanding of original context, greater understanding of cultural flows and material, greater understanding of how people deploy language and linguistic intent... It's really silly to think that linguistics is a dead field.
@@amonsmith4227 no it's not dead, and you could make evidence based claims, this video just wasn't one of them
@@joestupid7810 What do you define as "evidence-based"? Because Dan cites sources and shows detailed contextual reasons to take that reading. He doesn't even get into the really obvious point here which is that *if you keep reading* the text talks about the waters and the Earth as things that God can "come upon" and interact with. This *can't* be the first moment of creation. One could be intellectually consistent and say that the true first act of creation, of creation ex nihilo, was earlier, but Genesis 1 does not read that way, plain and simple.
And why lead with a bad argument?
I don't know who your opponent argumentator, if that's the proper phrase, is but he is infinitely painful to watch. You have far more patience than do I.
"interlocutor"
@@rainbowkrampus A very quick lookup of "interlocutor" yielded this:
"a person who takes part in a dialogue or conversation."
That definition, at least, is not applicable to what the TH-camr is doing.
Argumentator is a word that is not standard but should be - it turned a good TH-cam comment into a great TH-cam comment.
@@ballasog Dialogue: 1. A conversation between two or more people.
2. A discussion of positions or beliefs, especially between groups to resolve a disagreement.
Interlocutor: A person who takes part in a dialogue or conversation.
Note; nothing about dialogue requires that the participants be synchronous in time nor that one party necessarily has knowledge of the other nor that one party even be a person.
So, one can be in dialogue with a cultural context or genre conceit as much as one can be in dialogue with a long dead philosopher or a hypothetical person as much as one can be in dialogue with someone through written messages or face to face.
To bring it out of the realm of the abstract, our apologist friend and Dan here are both engaging in a discussion of their positions in this scenario we have seen unfold. And they are both persons engaging in a dialogue.
So, interlocutor is the correct term which describes both of them.
@@rainbowkrampus I'm only seeing it from Dan. From Mr. Freakazoid I'm seeing him backing into his own end zone, spiking the ball, and doing an end zone dance.
Wow. While I deeply & truly hope that the guy one day come to understand how wrong he is, and how patiently Dan explained things to him, I feel sorry for him if he does. The level of overdramatized cringe is so off the charts, he’s going to die of embarrassment.
Unfortunately, although he is overdramatic and dogmatic, he isn't wrong on this particular point, Dan is. In order to interpret the text as "In the beginning of God's creation...", you need to change the verb "bara" to "bro". There is no other way to make the interpretation work.
@@annaclarafenyo8185 Dan explains why that is wrong in rather excruciating detail. However, I do not speak Hebrew, so I am not qualified to judge.
That said, I listen to Dan and to the other guy, and the other guy is clearly at least as ignorant of Hebrew as I am, and his attempts at “scholarship” are so laughable, I see no reason to believe either him or you.
@@CharlesPayet Except I DO speak Hebrew, fluently, and I know for a fact that Dan is incorrect on this point. The commentators who read Gen 1:1 as "In the beginning of God's creation of the sky and the Earth..." (at least, the one who speaks Hebrew fluently, which was Rashi) all change the verb from "bara" (created) to "bro" (the act of creation).. It's a plausible change because it's the same spelling, just with a different pronunciation. I listened to Dan's analysis on this point, he never addresses the verb "bara", instead, focusing on the irrelevant "bereshit". I also agree the creation depicted isn't ex-nihilo, but the wording of the first verse reads "In the beginning God created the sky and the Earth" just as a point of obvious Hebrew, unless you change the verb to bro. This is why I lost all respect for Dan's Hebrew skills.
@@annaclarafenyo8185 then go get published in a peer-reviewed journal, and I’ll look forward to you overturning the apparent scholarly consensus, since you aren’t just challenging Dan’s knowledge of Hebrew, but most scholars’ interpretation of those verses. Dan provides citations to support his positions.
Or you could even make a response video to Dan with that argument and ask him to respond.
For the moment, I have no reason to believe you besides you saying, “Trust me, bro, I know what I’m talking about.”
@@CharlesPayet Dan is misrepresenting scholarly consensus. What I told you is WAY too obvious to publish. The scholarly consensus is that it could be "bara" or it could be "bro". But if it is 'bara", then it's "God created", and if it's "bro" then it is "of God's creation". That's just Hebrew 101, it doesn't deserve even a footnote in an article. Just Dan doesn't seem to know it.
Dan, is there any relationship between the preexisting chaotic waters of Genesis 1:1-2, and how God divides to water to create the universe, and the battle of Baal and Yamm as described in the Ugaritic texts? Thanks (:
Not at all an expert, but I've heard it said there is. It is interacting with the idea of created order being established by violent battle with the chaos dragon. In Genesis God is so powerful chaos isn't anything like a threat that needs to be defeated for him to perform his work.
This is the default understanding: both share the "conquering primordial water" motif, except that Genesis 1 intentionally de-personifies the water (just as it does the lights) and depicts Yahweh as the unquestioned ruler; the Deep doesn't even put up a fight, but yields to his power. The theme of "splitting" (or "dividing") the cosmic Deep is echoed across a lot of psalms and is expressed in a variety of ways, similar to the recorded Ugaritic framework.
Thanks for the replies, @GeoffBosco and @AurorXZ. I thought that there might be a parallel between the two texts, since both Ugarit and Israel are Canaanite societies with ultimately Canaanite mythologies. Also, Baal and YWHW seem to be very similar. They are both warrior/storm gods. But you make a good point, which is that the sea/chaotic waters don’t put up much of a fight against the Genesis God 😂 whereas Baal seems to actually be fighting an equal!
why does this dude sound like he's going insane
Because the Internet raised him
Going?
The dude Dan's responding to is just a good ol' fashioned internet troll
If he wanted "payback" or whatever for Inspiring Philosophy, the best way to do that would have been to succeed where IP failed, by demonstrating how IP's argument was a good one.
Instead he waited until he thought he had Dan close enough to a corner to lead him there and box him in, regarding a completely different subject. So, right from the start, your the mission of revenge is a failure.
And then, he simply demonstrated that he's in over your head, which is exactly what IP showed the world during his debacle of a back-and-forth with Dan.
And then the dancing and carrying-on at the end: why not just put a funny nose & big floppy shoes on and honk a horn? It had the same effect.
It dismays that people think that they can gain converts by calling those who disagree with them stupid.
You are right. I do lack the training, experience and resources to competently debate you, but you do present your arguments in a way that makes me feel like my intelligence is being respected and you display more patience with many of the content creators you deal with than I would.
Dan, you had me at raging, belligerent, butthurt. I enjoyed the more expansive explanation on the topic.
By the end I was concerned for the guy. He seems to be unwell. He was ranting about someone else being blocked and then he comes up with, "you have 9 days to reply". Or what? I really think he needs professional help.
too true. He is not well
Guy's anxiety about propping up his dogma, is giving me anxiety 😂. Yikes
Wisdom chases these "apologists," but they are faster.
ah yes it makes you look very intelligent arguing while sounding like you’re out of breath and stuttering the whole time that doesn’t at all make you look like you’re trying to be funny and failing
It makes him look more intelligent than if he didn't sound like he's out of breath and stuttering the whole time.
Dan, Dan, Dan . . . when will you learn . . . apologetics has zero to do with good faith and honesty but is more about lying to keep the cognitive dissonance at the lowest level possible to allow for peaceful sleep of the ignorance.
Oh, he knows. He’s talked about it numerous times. However, as a serious scholar and someone who truly cares about teaching, he’s targeting those people with doubts and questions who stay silent and watch/listen on the sidelines.
The diehard apologists won’t hear a word he says, but the ones with doubts will see the difference between Dan and whoever that is. They’ll hear the difference in the information presented & know who’s serious and who isn’t.
I doubt that apologists like that guy are capable of recognizing it, but the more they respond to scholars and ex-Christians, the more they alienate the questioners and increase the numbers of unbelievers.
Sad, I thought of the goal as to increase the number of thinkers rather than reduce the number of believers. Dan, after all, is a believer. Otherwise, I think your comment is spot-on and well-spoken.
❤❤❤❤❤❤ thanks Dan!!!!
dude just said “i need this explained to me like i’m 15” 🤦🏻♂️
The man without fear is the one who wants to struggle with Dan with such miserable weapons
I'm afraid that that whole ending response with, "we got'em him!" Really demonstrated his intentions and he's going to double down on position. :(
This guy is insufferable.
So performing reading someone else's work _as an argument_ and pretending that you don't know what it says before you performed your reading is a really good way to a. misrepresent that person's argument, b. create an excuse for your misrepresentation of that argument, and c. manipulate the audience emotionally into treating your argument like some protagonist-driven narrative.
He can’t be taken seriously. I’m embarrassed for him.
I'm wonder what would have happened if a prime Muhammad Ali had a boxing match against a 6 year old girl. For some reason, this video makes me wonder that.
Dan's "quiet heat" is CLASSIC!
It's sickening that on a platform where better and more meaningful understanding of the most cherished portions of some people's lives could be attained, we have clowning and performative hacks (who are somehow FOLLOWED for "insight", because they talk fast and can string along enough words that seem like they're saying the right things).
How low is a life that the height of that life's output is using poorly cribbed notes to try and play gotcha with a scholar.
Well... at least he finally dropped the affectation and acknowledged what his actual concerns were here?
I mean, they were stupid concerns. Imagine respecting Inspiring Philosophy in any capacity. But at least he's capable of demonstrating some kind of genuine personality, even if it is just belligerence.
A independent clause does not negate the narrative that the actual creation takes place from verse 3 onward.
Thanks again Dan. ❤
Perfect response ... yet again!
When considering the scholarly consensus is not right but picking and choosing outdated scholarship to defend your point and misunderstanding it is the right way to go 🤦
Dude was in his element when he was trying to be ironically detached. Not sure why he'd try to be serious now. He's got to know the facts aren't on his side.
A few points here if I may, where is the idea that poetry uses contruct forms in the absolute? how would a word being poetry or narrative make it be in contruct or absolute. Do you have examples (that are not suspect) where in poetry that contruct forms become absolute? You cant even always know if a form is in construct unless you see the vowel pointings, or the context, because for example in the form זמרת, it looks like in contruct but in context is not, so there it has to be the ancient spelling of fem nouns.
Also even in narrative you see ראשית sometimes in absolute, for example in Leviticus 2:12 קרבן ראשית תקריבו אתם
(Here קרבן is in contruct to ראשית)
And in Nehemiah 12:44 לַתרומות לָראשית ולַמעשרות with the article (although the Masoretes sometimes vocalize the article when there's not supposed to be one),
Then there's more in poetry, which I don't see that it should make a difference, in Deuteronomy 33:21 וירא ראשית לו (literally: he saw the best for himself, NRSV: he chose the best for himself), and ofcoarse In Isaiah 46:10. The word אחרית which seems like a similar word, is the same idea.
From the vocalization it seems to be in contruct, only because of 1 letter, plus we know the Masoretes were not great on vocalization in preposition consonants, although usually it's them vocalizing the article when they shouldn't.
I just want to say I'm not a scholar, but I have read quite an amount on the ancient Hebrew language and the grammer. Its quite hard a lot of times to make definitive interpretations because the language is so vague sometimes and short. Sometimes there is no "right" interpretation, no matter how many people give their opinion on something. If you know any sources that speak on this, please lemme know cause I'm curious how people make such definitive claims in biblical Hebrew
I’ve read enough wiki articles out loud to know when someone didn’t actually read the book lol. I wonder where he actually took his argument from
Always amazes me how they get dragged by their own source each and every time.
So much hostility over interpretation of ancient fiction.
good response Dan, just be careful of these techniques. Not necessarily your respondent however there is a new "game" that I don't understand but I see often online. I think it began in the video game culture and it has to do with capitalizing on the instinct of ours to justify, debate or simply "respond" to incorrect info or incorrect arguments. The "game" is to troll an individual.....the scoreboard is keystrokes. The more keystrokes, time or effort...or even the amount of time a person spends responding is the points. You see this in comment responses where arguments are lengthy responding to logical fallacies or incorrect information. The amount of time one can spend responding can seriously deter an unbeknownst honest debater or seeker from their actual work. In other words.....you can respond to such things indefinitely, all the while the game players are laughing together behind the scenes competing to see who can take up the most time or get the most attention...I have no clue why people do this online, but beware. I see it as a form of "trolling" and you can recognize it by blatantly incorrect info that sounds legit or extreme logical fallacies in arguments or even statements strongly stating the presenter is ignorant in an illogical way that "sounds" good. The person responding feels compelled, to the enjoyment of the "troller" to answer indefinitely, taking the honest debaters time, energy and focus. I'm not saying this person was doing that at all, only that this modern "game" that some engage in and enjoy, even as a group has caught me in its snare. They most often frequent theological, fundamentalist, political or sensitive platforms of social interest....yep. oh..they love Mormons and fundamentalist, relishing the format that honest arguments are plentiful. Crazy world we live in my friend. Peace. Bottom line...watch the time consumption and be on the lookout....Don't feed the bear comes to mind. The tell tale signs are the joy....indicating by laughing , belittlling and mocking the honest debater...what fun it is. The trap also is to get caught belittling the "troller" or stating one's position too strongly framing the honest responder as prideful arrogant angry and basically a jerk, to those who really don't dig into the arguments well. My recommendation for dealing with "trollers" such as that is to frame my answer way shorter than needed to make a point like..."do some homework, ty for your response" or "logical fallacy such and such" etc. That usually lets them know you know the game. We all must admit tho...human nature is funny regardless. Peace Dan.
Brandolini's Law: "The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than that needed to produce it."
All true, but the more bullshit that Dan responds to; by creating videos, the more clicks, and responses he receives which only helps his TH-cam channel grow, which puts a few extra $'s in his wallet.
And of course, the secondary benefit is that most of us regularly listening to his channel are being exposed to the academic analysis of biblical texts.
@@What_If_We_Tried lol yes as long as he responds to good arguments. If he focuses on easily proven shallow arguments, like this one...his channel and content could become..less valuable but balancing attention to trivial things and deeper concepts will indeed grow his channel.
@@peterhook2258 Agreed, and I wish Dan would respond to the apologists of Orthodox Judaism, e.g., R' Tovia Singer, or Jews For Judaism Canada who also have TH-cam channels.
TLDR
Dan McClellan *VS* Black Heath Ledger
😂
I think Dan probably has an Idea about who gave this creator the text he was reading supposedly about what Westermann said. I know I have a hunch. Who do we know who has an MO of aspiring to be a scholar and quoting scholars while actually misrepresenting what they are saying.
IP? Someone else in the comments recognized the source as WLC. Not much substantial difference tbh.
That... That wasn't a Rhyme. It was a parallelism.... This is 5th grade grammar....
@@creamwobbly”9-line” and “9-Days” do not rhyme… but they are paralleled in their numerical valuation.
@@creamwobbly I was wrong. I apologize. When he made his caveat after the second clause instead of the first, I thought he was saying that the end of each clause rhymed ('line' and 'me'). I now realize that he meant 'nine' and 'line.'
Clearly, I am not the only one who made this assumption by his adding the second clause. This is why I stick to my point that he should have said parallelism. If he meant rhyme and was only talking about the first clause, that would imply that the caveat does not apply to the second clause. That would mean that he was giving Dan an ultimatum. I don't think that was his rhetorical goal.
If he had said 'parallelism' the caveat would have definitely covered both independent clauses.
To put your mind at ease: A lot of people think that there need to be three instances or a word or phrase to qualify for parallelism, but that is a myth.
Examples of two instance parallelism include: "easy come, easy go," "fool me once... fool me twice...," "no pain, no gain," etc. Again, for this reason, I still think he should have said "parallelism," even though, yes, he did rhyme.
Thanks for checking me. I appreciate it.
@12:33 I love the foreshadowing.
"and yes I'm proud of myself"
Not only proud but gloating. Not only bad at engaging the scholarship, but bad at being a Christian it seems.
God, even when the guy drops the act, he's still absolutely insufferable
You need to add a seizure warning to the beginning of this video. Between the parkinsonian camera shake and the Jokeresque facial expressions, I'm either epilectic or apoplectic. Either way, its gonna be an expensive trip to the ER. 😂😂😂
Dan presents cogent and sourced arguments and reaches logically reasonable conclusions, typically.
Or, or, or.......Genesis is a nice story, but not factual at all. This guy's hard force to have Genesis as fact for creation is silly.
PULL THOSE UNDER GARMENTS DOWN😬
I get the appeal of apologetics. Can someone explain the appeal of this particular brand of apologetics? It's so grating.
Poor guy stressing so much over mythology. I wonder if the myths of other cultures worry him this much.
He'd probably say that they're work of "the devil" because they worship and venerate other Deities that are not Yahwe or Yēšū. It's ridiculous.
I truly believe this guy is a troll.
Not Dan
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!
The guy you're responding to is painful to watch!
Maybe it's a bad idea to just read parts of a text you haven't fully read nor understand.
So, to anyone more familiar with apologist tiktok than I am, is IP one of the big names over there? Is that why the dude at the end is upset over IP being blocked?
Oh snap.
It's weird to get so worked up about the grammar and syntax of a story that is demonstrably false. Like, in the end, either way you read it it's wrong--the Earth wasn't created in 6 days seven thousand years ago.
You have to admit the guy found a pretty idiosyncratic way of bsing people
Ehh, it's been done. I do it myself from time to time, ya know, with the caveat that I'm not making false arguments when I do it.
I've never seen it used in the apologetics circuit though. So that at least is novel.
Dan somehow knows that this kind of propagandist is incapable of good faith.
"Somehow" = " - thanks to the least degree of observation of how propagandapologists tend to argue and interact - "
wow...after watching this video to the end, its easy to see...the emotional outburst sure makes it look like an identified trolling episodes. And your continued engagement....is more points. Don't fallfor this.Laters.
Wow, this is sad, my mans watched the Rick and Morty heist episode and came up with this stunt. Little buddy is just so proud of himself, but doesn't seem to understand for the playing stupid shtick to work..... you actually have to be playing Stupid. But Yay! You did it! You showed IP that you are one of the good ones so there's that!
Many people don't consider checking for new and updated resources, like the Shroud of Turin, etc. I know that I didn't know to check back in the day.
Sure fire evidence that he will *not* be arguing in good faith is the point in the video when he was saying, "We're going to be all right." If soneone is that personally invested in one particular perspective being correct, to the point that they would feel 'not all right' if the other perspective had more supportive evidence for it, they're not evaluating the evidence in good faith. Good faith implies actually trying to determine the most likely meaning - not predetermining which meaning you want to find before evaluating the evidence.
What is it going to take for religious folk to realize that their beliefs are incompatible with reality.
This guy sounds like he’s afraid that, if he talks any louder, Michael Myers will hear him.
Dan is now Daredevil
DEBUNKED
That guy needs an inhaler. Or something.
One too many Red Bull. The guy needs to chill even more than he needs to think.
Is it cognitive dissonance and ignorant in a nutshell?
😂
Great choice to just play a few solid minutes of his ridiculous antics before laying out you're about to block him too.
That stuff is just a tactic to make engaging with them to be insufferable so no one with real expertise will hang around. That said, he's insufferable to even watch you respond to. Don't waste anymore time on him.
Mcclellan did not say that however, only that the person he is responding to not to waste his time.
Dan. You have still not addressed my point. I totally agree that Genesis1v1-2 indicates/states that the earth, darkness, and the "waters" pre-existed the creation of light.....that prior to to "DAY 1" the earth and the "waters" already existed in some form.
BUT .... this does not mean that these things were uncreated and therefore eternal. All it means is that the Scriptures do not say WHEN they were created. The Scriptures do not record the creation of the angelic beings - yet, nobody has ever suggested that angelic beings were uncreated.
If it doesn't say they're created then you have no data to suggest they were. And just like God was not created, again because of that lack of evidence, they're eternal.
@@Nick-o-time The Scriptures declare God to be the creator of "ALL THINGS" .....that includes the earth and anything else (e.g. angelic beings) that may have existed prior to Genesis 1v1-2.
Psalm 148 says of the angels "for He (God) commanded and they were created" (v2 and 8). Now the Scriptures NOWHERE, explains when they were created. Was it to the creation of "the heavens and the earth"? IF not; when?
"Bara" doesn't mean "creation", it's just "created", the verb. You have to change it to "bro" to make the interpretation work. "Bereshit bara elohim" without any doubt, just means "First God created". WIthout the change to "Bereshit bro Elohim", this interpretation is simply incorrect. This is obvious to all Hebrew speakers.
These people need therapy, ASAP.
I prophesize that the featured content creator will be blocked in the not distant future. 🙃😄