@@larrywestra9305The "original" Hebrew (or as original as we can construct given the lack of original manuscripts and demonstrable redaction and change process the texts went through) is where it is more obvious there is disagreement. Translations to English are often done in a way that masks the disagreements in the original text.
My wife and I just finished our laundry for the week, so this was timely: because God separated the lights from the darks, just like His wife told Him to! We own a copy of Plaut, et al, _The Torah: A Modern Commentary_ which reflects the consensus you spoke of. And thanks for mentioning Rashi!
As a nonbeliever who found you via Apocrypals, just wanted to say thank you for your insights and your consistent defense of those who need it most in these trying times.
I like the god who tramped noisily through the woods, and admitted their mistake. They sound more fun and more humble. The writers should have just gone with that god for the rest of the book.🌻
I get a kick out of the part where God makes all kinds of animals, hoping one of them would be a suitable mate. Now I can't stop imagining Adam trying every one of them on for size, with God throwing up his hands and explaining "nobody wrote a manual for this."
The argument is that in pre-(Babylonian)Exilic times, the god of Israel was similar to the other gods in the region: superhuman, yes, but also one of many regional gods and in possession of many human emotions. But during the Exile, the Israeli priests did not want the exiles to worship the Babylonian gods, as would have been customary, so the Israeli god became less human and more universal. This also led to fun stuff like the stories in Bel and the Dragon.
@@CAPSLOCKPUNDIT This god messed up so badly he used a Flood to reset Earth and start over. An issue with a companion for Adam is that he had both male and female parts, and most furry creatures don't come that way.
The OT God had humbling aspects for sure. But I don't think I'd call him humble at all. Not when he described himself as jealous, and put his own glory first.
@@CAPSLOCKPUNDITI'm also curious what the author's intent was given all the animals already had male and female. Or maybe after God had the great idea for female humans he decided it was a good enough upgrade to apply it to all animals? What about plants, did those not have male and female before either? I'm sure some great fan fiction could be written on these topics.
I actually clued in on how specific and weird the NIV choice to use the past perfect is in 2:8. It wasn't until I actually looked it up that I realized how many terrible and biased translation choices it has.
I think the wording suggests that Genesis 1 thru Genesis 2:4 is speaking of written programming. Similar to how computer code is written. While there was a sequence to the writing, the program doesn't function until all the coding is in place... then the "play button" is pressed after Genesis 2:3, and all the elements come into function together and simultaneously. Isaiah 48:13 This is explains the past tense to the wording in Genesis 2:8 The programming occurred first and in a sequence... then came the operation of the program. Note that God does not engage or interact in any dialogue or in action with any of His creation until after Genesis 2:3. There is only dictated parameters assigned to the creation. Essentially, what it looks like to me is that in Genesis 2:8, a previously programmed character is being dropped into a previously programmed world or map. Kind of like a game of minecraft.
The differences I could find between it and the KJV convinced me that the Bible was too different from the original texts to be trusted. Dan has helped me understand that they mostly did their best and that the faithfulness of reproduction can be checked against ancient sources. That said, Dan hasn't said anything that's restored my faith in Christianity.
@ What nonsense is this? The two entirely separate creation accounts were written by entirely different people at entirely different times, and then stitched together by yet more different people at later times. There's no programming involved. The story has the deity performing magic, forming order out of chaos and thus explaining their own world as they could see it. It's no different from "How Leopard Got His Spots" or some Pacific island demigod dredging their islands up from the deep. It's myth.
@seasquawker It was an origin story that was riffing off the Enūma Eliš. It was using material from a prior work so that it could show how this God was better than prior Gods. It needs the prior work to show the comparison, but requires new material to show the differences. We see this in music all the time. This argument comes from Josh Bowen PhD I hope I did it justice.
@@NWPaul72 Be true to yourself, that's all you can do. I lost my faith in Christianity too, and in the Bible, except I kept faith in Jesus where it belongs. I've found Dan's work very helpful. As a scientist, I've been trained to follow the data and to constantly test my beliefs.
I remember many years (25 or so) ago noticing this inconsistency in the bible after having heard from somewhere that the bible was miraculously perfect, with absolutely 0 inconsistencies. I spoke with my exes uncle and somehow he was able to get me back on the “correct” path.
This was the first time I noticed that agriculture was immediately invented, even though it's only existed for a very short blip during humanities existence.
Thank you for this. I’ve argued with flat earthers for many years now, and many are Christians who believe the Bible is inerrant. I try to deal with them without attacking their beliefs in God and Jesus as that just puts them on the defensive. The differences in the creation accounts are something I occasionally bring up and this helps a lot.
Ch2 is a summary of Ch1 with emphasis on story behind man and women. Is like saying "I made a chair out of wood and brought to my mom to sit on" I could have made the chair in high school wood shop. After graduation, took the chair home to give to mom. The idea was I was thinking of a gift to mom when making the chair in wood shop. Hence I combine it into one sentence. If I said that to dad, he would completely understand if I relay the story to him. I don't know about this theory that ancient tried to change the story, but left the one they didn't agree with in. People who try to change history typically destroy all other stories. Logically, it does not make sense. Why not just edit chapter 1 and be done. Save yourself the time of adding another chapter that don't agree with chapter 1 so now reader knows you are messing with the story. Weird theory.
The first time I read the Bible I was perplexed by the differences? But didn’t understand the reasons till later, which started my slow descent into deconversion.
Good discussion. The different sources of the Torah has always been my favorite area of study. Also, about Adam’s side, I literally just realized that it could have, and very likely have, referred to a literal half of Adam. Makes total sense as to his later statement in poetry.
I’m new here. Have you ever explained how Cain was exiled to a land of other people when his parents were supposed to be the first people on earth? That question got me kicked out of youth group when I was a teen.
Listen to the very first episode of his podcast! Data Over Dogma is the podcast and “In the Beginning” is the name of the episode. He doesn’t speak about Cain in that episode, but his explanation about the meaning about “beginnings” may shed more light for you!
Short version, like how he's talking about two different creation accounts here, the story of Cain likely comes from another tradition that already had the world populated, and was later absorbed into the Genesis account.
Because genesis 1 is the creation of human beings in gods image without any particu lar number mentioned . While genesis 2 is situated in Eden which is a temple which adam was created specifically to operate in that temple of Eden. In ither words. There is an unspecified amount if humans created prior to the creation of adam . There's also no verse in the bible that states adam and eve were the first humans
I heard another scholar talk about the possibility it appeared later in Genesis and got moved forward and past our the story was removed in the process. Several possibilities were mentioned and almost all of them that I recall boiled down to, 'the editor screwed up"
Gen 2.19 "וַיִּצֶר" gets translated 'had made' the animals (beforehand) as opposed to just 'made' (right now) in many versions to try to smooth over the problem that in the first version, animals were made before humans
11:01 The archival hypothesis is quite good. It is how we archive short stories and essays. We put them in collections, and when I was in school, we forced students to buy those collections.
Most critical scholars are in agreement that Genesis was not a composition of a single author; it consists of different layers of tradition. No doubt the Old Testament consists of many layers of oral traditions.
Hmmmm. Imperfect creation with perfect thoughts or perfect creation with imperfect thoughts? Or maybe a top to bottom hierarchy vs a bottom to top hierarchy. I don't quite get it yet but I must have my middles and make a triad.
Hi Dan I have a question the woman in revelation 12, is that woman Mary mother of jesus? If so Does Mary wear 12 star crown that represent 12 apostles 12 tribes of Israel and Queen of heaven
There are two different stories because this book is not inerrant, its full of errors, contradictions and just interesting magical stories that are similiar to fairytales like god himself.
No, sun ignites in Day 1. Day 2 is hot water vapour covering the earth. This is where Genesis 2:4-7 begins, simply being a summary of Days 2 to 6. Day 4 is photosynthesis producing an oxygen-rich atmosphere, and by that time volcanic activity began to settle down a lot, in other words Day 4 is the atmosphere becoming transparent, giving visibility to the sun, moon and stars. There's a good reason why Dan is not considered worth listening to by theologians, because he's lacks taking everything into consideration.
11 Then God said, “Let the earth sprout [j]vegetation, [k]plants yielding seed, and fruit trees on the earth bearing fruit after [l]their kind [m]with seed in them”; and it was so. 12 The earth brought forth [n]vegetation, [o]plants yielding seed after [p]their kind, and trees bearing fruit [q]with seed in them, after [r]their kind; and God saw that it was good. 13 There was evening and there was morning, a third day. 14 Then God said, “Let there be [s]lights in the [t]expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years; 15 and let them be for [u]lights in the [v]expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth”; and it was so. 16 God made the two [w]great lights, the greater [x]light [y]to govern the day, and the lesser [z]light [aa]to govern the night; He made the stars also. 17 God placed them in the [ab]expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth, 18 and [ac]to govern the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness; and God saw that it was good. 19 There was evening and there was morning, a fourth day. 20 Then God said, “Let the waters [ad]teem with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth [ae]in the open [af]expanse of the heavens.” 21 God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarmed after their kind, and every winged bird after its kind; and God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.” 23 There was evening and there was morning, a fifth day.
One thing that always struck me odd reading the Bible as a Christian was where in genesis chapter 2 it names the Tigris river that flows east of Assyria but this would have been before the global flood and I couldn’t understand there being the same river before and after a global flood.
@@austinsweeney9898 A river can and likely would flow in the same place as a previous one once did. The Genesis story says the flood persisted for about a year, and that's a significant portion of time, but probably not enough to wipe out all pre-existing geography.
Dr. McClellan, a question: what is up with the stream in Gen 2:7? I reread the verse while following along with this video and was a bit confused. The Hebrew word is אד, which I had thought means "steam" (though I speak modern Hebrew, not biblical Hebrew). The NRSVue translates it as "stream", but that doesn't really make sense to me in context - the phrase is ואד יעלה מן הארץ והשקה את כל פני האדמה, which says the Ed is rising from the ground/land and watering the whole face of the earth. That makes it sound more like a fog rising up from the ground and spreading out over the earth, rather than a stream appearing (maybe bubbling up from a spring?) and watering one segment of the land. Furthermore, we have the more standard word for "river" נהר used starting in 2:9 and consistently throughout the rest of the chapter. And the only other usage of אד according to Strong's Hebrew is Job 36:27, where NRSVue translates it as "mist" - that sounds more sensible for Gen 2:7 as well. Is this a typo in the NRSVue (stream vs. steam) or am I missing something?
Hey Dan, can you please discuss the argument on if the trinity was within the first century AD based upon the Didiache? I see a lot of apologetics on it but no response
I first learned about this from Professor Joel Baden. It shocked me to my core. Also, to anyone reading this comment- Marty Solomon's podcast The BEMA Podcast does a fantastic analysis of early Genesis, and it has also radically changed my life. Highly recommend. Genesis is a fascinating book.
Well then, there goes the hypothesis of the Eighth Day of creation down the drain. I kind of liked it, but I thought it was a bit of a convenience anyway. Thanks for this clarification.
The way you describe it makes the Gen 2 story sound more like the myth of Aristophanes in the Symposium. In that story, where human beings were originally composed of two full bodies joined together, they angered Zeus and he split them all apart. That also explains why people want to have sex, to rejoin into a full double body.
“So I was reading that creation account, and dude… Says God made a mistake. How I’m gonna write this song about our God being awesome if he be here makin mistakes.”
"In the beginning the Universe was created. This had made many people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” ― Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe
I really enjoy the idea of the firmament and the dome over it. And everything outside of the dome being water. Makes the flood story work a lot better. I would like to know what was under the water and the pillars underneath the land. I guess they just decided it was too silly and unnecessary to go any further down.
I love your videos, Dan! My question is, during the period the Bible was written, did the sophistication and subtlety of language exist that you are imposing on it, or could many of these differences be attributed to the inability to draw subtle differences between ideas or just plain sloppy writing?
"If you want to take the Bible seriously" ✋ i need to stop you right there. We both know that isn't the goal. For most, the Bible is nothing more than a permission slip.
Just listened to your podcast about Lilith. I'm wondering if there isn't a fall story in there with patriarchy as the first sin. But again that story begs the question of God making an error.
What I never understood is if Gods spirit is kind gentle loving faithful good joyful patient self controlled and peaceful then how can God be jealous vengeful regretful angry thin skinned and murder people? Jesus said to love and forgive our enemies but Jesus is supposed to come back one day with a sword to avenge Gods enemies?
Gnosticism’s answer to this paradox is suggesting that the creator of the Universe and the prison of the Material reality humanity experiences; was an incomplete, and arrogant Demiurge named Yaldabaoth.
@@yurironoue5888It's inaccurate to say that Yahweh was fundamentally different attitude wise, as the character is both more caring and violent in both the hebrew and greek texts. It's certainly an ontologically/intradiagetically inconsistent character( as it's portrayed as both an overseeing third party and a human), but to say that the new testament deity is now entirely good is not true. Also, why would the supposedly loving deity create the demiurge and force us to suffer on this palnet to begin with? If you think about it, since the PoE is an issue for christians( not physicalists like myself) and if they want to believe that everything is fine-tuned( it isn't) then gnosticism is more rational under their own specific metaphysics. The demiurge is just a slightly less contrived satan character( which is mostly a post-biblical idea to begin with.)
@ Unfortunately, I cannot answer your question, because I am not an expert on Gnostic texts. I listened to the videos of several religious scholars like Dr Justin Sledge, who made two videos, discussing the idea of the Demiurge Yaldabaoth being a cruel, vindictive, short-sighted and vain facsimile of Divinity, an imitation of the True God, who tries to play at being a Supreme Deity because he doesn't know where he came from, but at the same time, has the incredible power to create a Universe (a cage binding souls) away from the Pleuroma.
Probably because the collators of the final inclusion of the writings that would comprise the bible decided that including 11 conflicting stories about Genesis would make it too obvious that they were just making it all up and culled it down to 2.
Chapter two starts with the end of chapter 1 and then is the rest of day 6. You can easily slot chapter 2 into day 6 in chapter 1 and it's all one story that ends with God resting on day 7. Chapter 3 is sometime after day 7.
There’s also the small matter that the Priestly account (Genesis 1) calls God “Elohim” (“God” in the KJV and many other translations) while the earlier Genesis 2 account calls Him “YHWH El” (“the Lᴏʀᴅ God” in the KJV and many other translations).
There is also a third creation account: Genesis 5:1-2, which blends the Priestly and Yahwist sources, but is introduced with a title, as though it were intended to be the start of scripture ("This is the book of the generations of Adam.") You could actually omit Genesis 1-4 and improve the coherence of the Old Testament. You'd only run into difficulty upon reaching Paul's epistles, which are so dependent on Genesis 2-3.
The word "tzelem" is Dan misremembering "tzela", which doesn't mean "side", it means "rib bone". "tzelem" in any case means image, not side, and it has nothing to do with "tzela". This is not a small error.
Were humans created last as the pinnacle of creation, or because they are not able to survive without all that was created before them? While I do not believe in god, I think there is sthg quite admirable in this second myth: we cannot live without the planet/minerals, water, air, plants, other animals. This makes sense and is worth reflecting on in our days of polution and global warming.
I suppose this divergences happen with all religions. Zoroastrianism and Hinduism have ideas in common with each other and with other Indo-European mythologies but there are variations depending on when and where those stories developed. If someone tried to create a united doctrine copying and pasting bits and pieces of each one of those traditions, the result would also be messy, inconsistent and contradictory.
I understand you are a scholar. But do you subscribe to Christianity or any religion? Just asking for my own info. I really like your explanations on the bible in it's context
The next error is "Bereshit bara elohim". While "bereshit" does mean "in the beginning (of something)", the verb "bara" does not allow that (of something) to be the creation, because it would be UNGRAMMATICAL. To say "In the beginning of God's creation..." it would have to be a different verb-form, "Bereshit bro Elohim". This is a universal fact of Hebrew grammar that is only considered debatable to people who don't speak the langauge with any fluency. Like Dan. This is rank incompetence.
Genesis 1 has the chaotic waters that still need to be addressed. Chaos is not good. On the second day God separates the waters above from the waters below and there is no statement about the goodness of this. It's the only day it's absent. I'm pretty sure the authors did that on purpose.
Maybe god just has bad grammar, and he didn't notice because he was outside of time and space when he said it all at once forever and anyone who heard the word of god was driven mad by its cosmic horror ubermensch absurdity That was beyond mere mortals to comprehend because they are not all at once forever Like the bagel from that movie That was a parody of the metaphysics of everything everywhere all at once, Which i forgot the name of
❤ u! Secondly, a request: do you have videos about grammar itself. Like explaining more of plu perfects and other hiphils, hophils, verb tenses etc. I’d love to learn that stuff to follow you better. Thank you regardless.
What scholarly sources would I look at to understand how and why we have the verses and chapters we have now? Because it seems to me like it would have made more sense to break the chapters up when we switch accounts, but instead we switch accounts part way through the middle of a verse near but not at the beginning of chapter 2. And I can't remember any specific other examples but I know I have seen other verse and chapter breaks that seem odd to put it mildly. (And yes I understand the utility of not changing it now that people are used to how it has been done)
Could it be also that early Hebrews might have been exposed to other earlier creation stories from different cultures so that having two different stories (with similarities) of creation did not seem all that odd to the priests? Imagine if there was a creation story (or stories) that had already existed for some time in neighboring cultures that the earliest Hebrews knew about. They could easily adopt and modify these creation stories instead of coming up with their own from scratch. I mean, would early Hebrews be more likely to come up with a totally new creation story of their own that no one in that region had ever heard before or would they have incorporated some elements of other creation stories that had been circulating around them for many years possibly? OR would it be a coincidence if creation stories from that region have similarities even when you take into account that the stories are trying to explain creation? Creation accounts of the world can look vastly different depending on the ancient culture. Sure, there are probably going to be SOME similarities but I wonder how many similarities are required before we can say there is a high probability that a specific culture adopted a creation story or some elements of a creation story from another.
9:21……Mostly…. Day Two, Gen 1:6-8, the separation of water, the Sky-Dome creation lacks God seeing it was good. I am mildly curious as to whether this was a simple omission or one done with intent.
The next egregious error in Hebrew is "Barishona". This is not even a Hebrew word. It can't be substituted in any way for "bereshit", it sounds terrible, it's completely wrong. One correct word for this sentiment would be "Betchila". But the interesting thing is that "Bereshit" works just by itself, because, when it's "Bereshit bara Elohim" it has nothing to attach to, there's nothing it is "the beginning of", so it sounds like the beginning of time, exactly as every reader understood it since the Septuagint.
The Criswell Study Bible has a ton of footnotes. At the start of Genesis, he brings up "the gap theory" which I am sure you are aware. I feel he was trying to find a way to spin the scientific evidence and Bible are in sync which I laugh at now. Would appreciate your doing on his use of this "theory"
Gen 1 is most accurately translated by the NRSVue. I have lost respect for the NASB 95 and later and the ESV which are claimed to be more literal but are influenced by evangelical doctrine.
I guess but doesn't this make more assumptions tho? These passengers are like back to back . I would feel this to be more the about passengers that are further apart in certain books ,which makes it easier to believe that there were edits or additions as time moved on and new generations change things. But I feel it's a bit of a reach to assumes that is changed with and both at the same time the next generations wants to simply keep both for preservation reasons. Like do we see that to be the case in other places too? If they wanted to change it then why not delete the one ? Like it's hard to say that time would effect passages that are literally hugging each other. Couldn't it be talking about 2 things or rather a different aspect of the one thing? We may say that it's also an assumption for all or any verses or chapters to by necessity to agree, which i agree on that, but I don't think it's a far reaching assumption that 2 sentences next to each other should share some kind of agreement, unless we are missing a full paragraph of information between them ... usally we go with the idea that requires less assumptions because then the assumptions are doing the heavy lifting. I just don't see why the preceding generations of nobles would seek to change but then keep the thing that didn't like. When we seem to see things being taken out ,added or replaced outright .
Hello, thank you for your video, I really appreciate your content on this channel, Data->Dogma and other channel where you appear. I was interested if you could make a video or maybe point to some other video or a resourse about the history and etymology of the titles of the books in the Bible in different languages. Since English isn't my native language, when I first started reasearching, reading and trying to see the Bible from different perspectives and languages, I was very surprised when found so many differences in the spelling of some words, names and so on, and even whole new words for describing or calling something or someone, so much so, that, for example, in my native languages, Russian and Ukrainian, the first book of the Bible is called "Бытие" and "Буття", respectively, which I've never truly understood, what is the connection, in English, as I see it, the closest words which would be equivalent are "Being", "Reality", "Existence" and similar, I don't know what it has to do with creation specifically, while in English translations, the title of the book is "Genesis", the root of which we do actually use both in Russian and Ukranian for expressing the meanning of creating or generating something, most often in technical or scientific terms but can also use it in more common ones. Some other books mean and sound almost the same, while others are so different, as well as the meaning of some words in their contents, that it's like I'm ready different texts all together. Currently, I'm not religious, and yet, these topics still fascinate and intrigue me, the Bible as well as other ancienct texts are so much richer and deeper when you can look for, find and uncover layers upon layers of history, traditions, individuals' points of view, practices, cultures and so much more, it's like a connection through time 😊 In any case, you don't have to necessarily reply, since I understand that there are much more important and urgent topicts to discuss to help people develop critical thinking skills, see and understand the Bible and its history more objectively, which you manage to do excellently
You can tell that different authors are involved just by looking at how God is named. Genesis 1 speaks of God and in Genesis 2 it is Lord God. Progressing through Genesis you may note that texts addressing the Lord God are also those that have led to modern thought about the fault and inferiority of women and darker skinned persons. Interesting?
Genesis 2:19 New World Translation Now Jehovah God had been forming from the ground every wild animal of the field and every flying creature of the heavens, and he began bringing them to the man to see what he would call each one
1. The name of the patron deity of Israel is yahweh( YHWH or transliterated as adonie), not Jehovah. The letter J didn't exist until the 16th century and when in late Germanic dialects Ys were pronounced as Js and Ws as Vs. 2. Wild animals and birds( which people falsely believed bats were birds) weren't created by Golem Spells. 3. They didn't all magically come to be named. Also, how exactly is this relevant in any way? This doesn't change the fact that there are numerous creation stories that almost all contradict each other.
Genesis: 1 credits El "the head Canaanite god" Genesis: 2 credits El-Yahweh "the second tier god of Israel" Deuteronomy 32:8-9 (Dead Sea Scrolls) When Elyon divided the nations, when he separated the sons of Adam, he established the borders of the nations according to the number of the sons of the gods. Yahweh’s portion was his people, [Israel] his allotted inheritance.
@maklelan 11:52 I've read that there is no explicit pluperfect in Ancient Hebrew, and that "had created" is a valid interpretation given the context (and yes I've just watched the context video too, loved it). Could you (or anyone else) give a definitive explanation why this cannot be interpreted as pluperfect?
He talked about this in another video, (and maybe also on Data over Dogma), but from what I remember, there is a way to do the pluperfect in Hebrew, and the way the the story in Gen 2 is structured is not it. I don't remember the exact grammatical verb form names, but the story in Gen 2 uses an uninterrupted series of the same form of verb, which always indicates a series of events that happened in the order described. For the pluperfect in Hebrew, you would have to have a different form of a verb that interrupts the series of past tense verbs.
When biblical authors disagree, apologists try to pretend that they don't.
Only in English. Originally not in disagreement.
@@larrywestra9305The "original" Hebrew (or as original as we can construct given the lack of original manuscripts and demonstrable redaction and change process the texts went through) is where it is more obvious there is disagreement. Translations to English are often done in a way that masks the disagreements in the original text.
@ Thank you for illustrating my point so beautifully.
God adjusted your camera to add emphasis! Now, I am a believer.
Amazing how much a difference the colorful lighting can make. It instantly makes your videos much more professional looking.
I think it's that the cooler lighting on the background helps it to recede while visually pushing him forward. Simple, but effective!
The background lighting is soothing. Your camera gained sentience.
My wife and I just finished our laundry for the week, so this was timely: because God separated the lights from the darks, just like His wife told Him to!
We own a copy of Plaut, et al, _The Torah: A Modern Commentary_ which reflects the consensus you spoke of. And thanks for mentioning Rashi!
You were chosen to be our teacher, thank you Sir for all your hard work, I appreciate you.
As a nonbeliever who found you via Apocrypals, just wanted to say thank you for your insights and your consistent defense of those who need it most in these trying times.
I like the god who tramped noisily through the woods, and admitted their mistake. They sound more fun and more humble. The writers should have just gone with that god for the rest of the book.🌻
I get a kick out of the part where God makes all kinds of animals, hoping one of them would be a suitable mate. Now I can't stop imagining Adam trying every one of them on for size, with God throwing up his hands and explaining "nobody wrote a manual for this."
The argument is that in pre-(Babylonian)Exilic times, the god of Israel was similar to the other gods in the region: superhuman, yes, but also one of many regional gods and in possession of many human emotions. But during the Exile, the Israeli priests did not want the exiles to worship the Babylonian gods, as would have been customary, so the Israeli god became less human and more universal.
This also led to fun stuff like the stories in Bel and the Dragon.
@@CAPSLOCKPUNDIT This god messed up so badly he used a Flood to reset Earth and start over.
An issue with a companion for Adam is that he had both male and female parts, and most furry creatures don't come that way.
The OT God had humbling aspects for sure.
But I don't think I'd call him humble at all. Not when he described himself as jealous, and put his own glory first.
@@CAPSLOCKPUNDITI'm also curious what the author's intent was given all the animals already had male and female. Or maybe after God had the great idea for female humans he decided it was a good enough upgrade to apply it to all animals? What about plants, did those not have male and female before either? I'm sure some great fan fiction could be written on these topics.
Love these little longer videos ❤. Getting deeper, but not quite a podcast episode.
I have kids. I rarely make it past 7 or 8 minutes
I actually clued in on how specific and weird the NIV choice to use the past perfect is in 2:8. It wasn't until I actually looked it up that I realized how many terrible and biased translation choices it has.
I think the wording suggests that Genesis 1 thru Genesis 2:4 is speaking of written programming. Similar to how computer code is written. While there was a sequence to the writing, the program doesn't function until all the coding is in place... then the "play button" is pressed after Genesis 2:3, and all the elements come into function together and simultaneously. Isaiah 48:13
This is explains the past tense to the wording in Genesis 2:8
The programming occurred first and in a sequence... then came the operation of the program. Note that God does not engage or interact in any dialogue or in action with any of His creation until after Genesis 2:3. There is only dictated parameters assigned to the creation.
Essentially, what it looks like to me is that in Genesis 2:8, a previously programmed character is being dropped into a previously programmed world or map. Kind of like a game of minecraft.
The differences I could find between it and the KJV convinced me that the Bible was too different from the original texts to be trusted. Dan has helped me understand that they mostly did their best and that the faithfulness of reproduction can be checked against ancient sources. That said, Dan hasn't said anything that's restored my faith in Christianity.
@ What nonsense is this? The two entirely separate creation accounts were written by entirely different people at entirely different times, and then stitched together by yet more different people at later times. There's no programming involved. The story has the deity performing magic, forming order out of chaos and thus explaining their own world as they could see it. It's no different from "How Leopard Got His Spots" or some Pacific island demigod dredging their islands up from the deep. It's myth.
@seasquawker It was an origin story that was riffing off the Enūma Eliš. It was using material from a prior work so that it could show how this God was better than prior Gods.
It needs the prior work to show the comparison, but requires new material to show the differences.
We see this in music all the time.
This argument comes from Josh Bowen PhD I hope I did it justice.
@@NWPaul72 Be true to yourself, that's all you can do. I lost my faith in Christianity too, and in the Bible, except I kept faith in Jesus where it belongs. I've found Dan's work very helpful. As a scientist, I've been trained to follow the data and to constantly test my beliefs.
I remember many years (25 or so) ago noticing this inconsistency in the bible after having heard from somewhere that the bible was miraculously perfect, with absolutely 0 inconsistencies. I spoke with my exes uncle and somehow he was able to get me back on the “correct” path.
This was the first time I noticed that agriculture was immediately invented, even though it's only existed for a very short blip during humanities existence.
Thank you for this. I’ve argued with flat earthers for many years now, and many are Christians who believe the Bible is inerrant. I try to deal with them without attacking their beliefs in God and Jesus as that just puts them on the defensive. The differences in the creation accounts are something I occasionally bring up and this helps a lot.
Ch2 is a summary of Ch1 with emphasis on story behind man and women.
Is like saying "I made a chair out of wood and brought to my mom to sit on" I could have made the chair in high school wood shop. After graduation, took the chair home to give to mom.
The idea was I was thinking of a gift to mom when making the chair in wood shop. Hence I combine it into one sentence. If I said that to dad, he would completely understand if I relay the story to him.
I don't know about this theory that ancient tried to change the story, but left the one they didn't agree with in. People who try to change history typically destroy all other stories. Logically, it does not make sense. Why not just edit chapter 1 and be done. Save yourself the time of adding another chapter that don't agree with chapter 1 so now reader knows you are messing with the story. Weird theory.
What a great topic! Thanks, Dann
The first time I read the Bible I was perplexed by the differences? But didn’t understand the reasons till later, which started my slow descent into deconversion.
Good discussion. The different sources of the Torah has always been my favorite area of study. Also, about Adam’s side, I literally just realized that it could have, and very likely have, referred to a literal half of Adam. Makes total sense as to his later statement in poetry.
The camera-zoom was pretty fitting, honestly.
I’m new here. Have you ever explained how Cain was exiled to a land of other people when his parents were supposed to be the first people on earth? That question got me kicked out of youth group when I was a teen.
Listen to the very first episode of his podcast! Data Over Dogma is the podcast and “In the Beginning” is the name of the episode. He doesn’t speak about Cain in that episode, but his explanation about the meaning about “beginnings” may shed more light for you!
If you type "mcclellan cain" into the TH-cam search bar, you'll find his video titled "Responding to a Question about Cain & the Land of Nod"
Short version, like how he's talking about two different creation accounts here, the story of Cain likely comes from another tradition that already had the world populated, and was later absorbed into the Genesis account.
Because genesis 1 is the creation of human beings in gods image without any particu lar number mentioned .
While genesis 2 is situated in Eden which is a temple which adam was created specifically to operate in that temple of Eden.
In ither words. There is an unspecified amount if humans created prior to the creation of adam . There's also no verse in the bible that states adam and eve were the first humans
I heard another scholar talk about the possibility it appeared later in Genesis and got moved forward and past our the story was removed in the process.
Several possibilities were mentioned and almost all of them that I recall boiled down to, 'the editor screwed up"
Thanks again, Dr. Dan. Your knowledge is exhaustive!
Gen 2.19 "וַיִּצֶר" gets translated 'had made' the animals (beforehand) as opposed to just 'made' (right now) in many versions to try to smooth over the problem that in the first version, animals were made before humans
No, let's talk about potato salad.
I'd like some potato salad but hold the salad
How do you feel about warm "German potato salad" with bacon bits?
That's what I'm saying
*points at the sky*
Let's see potato salad!
@@azurejester Makes sense
And Baptists will say.... Well, God said because he "breathed" two creation accounts. 😆 Great Work Dan!
11:01 The archival hypothesis is quite good. It is how we archive short stories and essays. We put them in collections, and when I was in school, we forced students to buy those collections.
My personal favorite translation for tohu va-vohu is “empty-schmempty”
Most critical scholars are in agreement that Genesis was not a composition of a single author; it consists of different layers of tradition. No doubt the Old Testament consists of many layers of oral traditions.
Of course, as most of the characters didn't exist and there is no univocality/shared rhetorical goals in the texts.
Hmmmm. Imperfect creation with perfect thoughts or perfect creation with imperfect thoughts? Or maybe a top to bottom hierarchy vs a bottom to top hierarchy. I don't quite get it yet but I must have my middles and make a triad.
Hi Dan I have a question the woman in revelation 12, is that woman Mary mother of jesus? If so Does Mary wear 12 star crown that represent 12 apostles 12 tribes of Israel and Queen of heaven
Aesop: God created bad scribes
I have always had a problem with the 2 Genesis stories. I appreciate your perspective.
There are two different stories because this book is not inerrant, its full of errors, contradictions and just interesting magical stories that are similiar to fairytales like god himself.
In G1, plants were created before the sun.
God 1 science 0 🎉
@@zbuilder4664 The writers did not know any better.
No, sun ignites in Day 1. Day 2 is hot water vapour covering the earth. This is where Genesis 2:4-7 begins, simply being a summary of Days 2 to 6. Day 4 is photosynthesis producing an oxygen-rich atmosphere, and by that time volcanic activity began to settle down a lot, in other words Day 4 is the atmosphere becoming transparent, giving visibility to the sun, moon and stars. There's a good reason why Dan is not considered worth listening to by theologians, because he's lacks taking everything into consideration.
@@mattburns617 Pls read Gen1-11 to 19
11 Then God said, “Let the earth sprout [j]vegetation, [k]plants yielding seed, and fruit trees on the earth bearing fruit after [l]their kind [m]with seed in them”; and it was so. 12 The earth brought forth [n]vegetation, [o]plants yielding seed after [p]their kind, and trees bearing fruit [q]with seed in them, after [r]their kind; and God saw that it was good. 13 There was evening and there was morning, a third day.
14 Then God said, “Let there be [s]lights in the [t]expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years; 15 and let them be for [u]lights in the [v]expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth”; and it was so. 16 God made the two [w]great lights, the greater [x]light [y]to govern the day, and the lesser [z]light [aa]to govern the night; He made the stars also. 17 God placed them in the [ab]expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth, 18 and [ac]to govern the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness; and God saw that it was good. 19 There was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.
20 Then God said, “Let the waters [ad]teem with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth [ae]in the open [af]expanse of the heavens.” 21 God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarmed after their kind, and every winged bird after its kind; and God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.” 23 There was evening and there was morning, a fifth day.
One thing that always struck me odd reading the Bible as a Christian was where in genesis chapter 2 it names the Tigris river that flows east of Assyria but this would have been before the global flood and I couldn’t understand there being the same river before and after a global flood.
It may not be. Perhaps they just renamed the new river with the old name.
@ yes but it’s states where it flowed . Idk
@@austinsweeney9898
A river can and likely would flow in the same place as a previous one once did. The Genesis story says the flood persisted for about a year, and that's a significant portion of time, but probably not enough to wipe out all pre-existing geography.
One of many creation stories around the world. Nobody knows how it all started. For me, it's do no harm. 😊
I love the longer form videos. just wanted to make that known
I also like them, but please keep making short form videos too.
I need something to watch when I go to the bathroom! 👍
Dr. McClellan, a question: what is up with the stream in Gen 2:7? I reread the verse while following along with this video and was a bit confused. The Hebrew word is אד, which I had thought means "steam" (though I speak modern Hebrew, not biblical Hebrew). The NRSVue translates it as "stream", but that doesn't really make sense to me in context - the phrase is ואד יעלה מן הארץ והשקה את כל פני האדמה, which says the Ed is rising from the ground/land and watering the whole face of the earth. That makes it sound more like a fog rising up from the ground and spreading out over the earth, rather than a stream appearing (maybe bubbling up from a spring?) and watering one segment of the land. Furthermore, we have the more standard word for "river" נהר used starting in 2:9 and consistently throughout the rest of the chapter. And the only other usage of אד according to Strong's Hebrew is Job 36:27, where NRSVue translates it as "mist" - that sounds more sensible for Gen 2:7 as well. Is this a typo in the NRSVue (stream vs. steam) or am I missing something?
I'm digging your face at the beginning. It expresses so well
Hey Dan, can you please discuss the argument on if the trinity was within the first century AD based upon the Didiache? I see a lot of apologetics on it but no response
I first learned about this from Professor Joel Baden. It shocked me to my core. Also, to anyone reading this comment- Marty Solomon's podcast The BEMA Podcast does a fantastic analysis of early Genesis, and it has also radically changed my life. Highly recommend. Genesis is a fascinating book.
Well then, there goes the hypothesis of the Eighth Day of creation down the drain. I kind of liked it, but I thought it was a bit of a convenience anyway. Thanks for this clarification.
This is an extremely helpful summary. Thank you.
Great to see some appreciation for modern Frank Miller art.
If humans came from dirt, then why is there still dirt?
(It really does sound silly, no matter who says it.)
"If Eve was made from Adam why was Adam still around?"
Dramatic zoom!
The way you describe it makes the Gen 2 story sound more like the myth of Aristophanes in the Symposium. In that story, where human beings were originally composed of two full bodies joined together, they angered Zeus and he split them all apart. That also explains why people want to have sex, to rejoin into a full double body.
“So I was reading that creation account, and dude…
Says God made a mistake. How I’m gonna write this song about our God being awesome if he be here makin mistakes.”
"In the beginning the Universe was created.
This had made many people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.”
― Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe
I really enjoy the idea of the firmament and the dome over it. And everything outside of the dome being water. Makes the flood story work a lot better. I would like to know what was under the water and the pillars underneath the land. I guess they just decided it was too silly and unnecessary to go any further down.
Turtles, all the way
Sheol
I love your videos, Dan! My question is, during the period the Bible was written, did the sophistication and subtlety of language exist that you are imposing on it, or could many of these differences be attributed to the inability to draw subtle differences between ideas or just plain sloppy writing?
❤❤❤❤❤thanks Dan!!!!
Thank you for helping cut through the bull$h*t
"If you want to take the Bible seriously" ✋ i need to stop you right there. We both know that isn't the goal. For most, the Bible is nothing more than a permission slip.
I have never heard that before, but that's beautiful! Absolutely perfect!
A time to tear down and a time to build up
I was told that, because God is a baseball fan, Genesis 1:1 is actually supposed to read "In the big inning". . . . 😋
I think God created the Man during the 7th inning stretch. No data exists as to whether any sort of music was playing. 🤔😄
Oh please, it originally said "Once apon a time"
Just listened to your podcast about Lilith. I'm wondering if there isn't a fall story in there with patriarchy as the first sin. But again that story begs the question of God making an error.
Since they were patriarchal it’s impossible your interpretation could ever be correct.
What I never understood is if Gods spirit is kind gentle loving faithful good joyful patient self controlled and peaceful then how can God be jealous vengeful regretful angry thin skinned and murder people? Jesus said to love and forgive our enemies but Jesus is supposed to come back one day with a sword to avenge Gods enemies?
Gnosticism’s answer to this paradox is suggesting that the creator of the Universe and the prison of the Material reality humanity experiences; was an incomplete, and arrogant Demiurge named Yaldabaoth.
@@yurironoue5888It's inaccurate to say that Yahweh was fundamentally different attitude wise, as the character is both more caring and violent in both the hebrew and greek texts. It's certainly an ontologically/intradiagetically inconsistent character( as it's portrayed as both an overseeing third party and a human), but to say that the new testament deity is now entirely good is not true. Also, why would the supposedly loving deity create the demiurge and force us to suffer on this palnet to begin with? If you think about it, since the PoE is an issue for christians( not physicalists like myself) and if they want to believe that everything is fine-tuned( it isn't) then gnosticism is more rational under their own specific metaphysics.
The demiurge is just a slightly less contrived satan character( which is mostly a post-biblical idea to begin with.)
@ Unfortunately, I cannot answer your question, because I am not an expert on Gnostic texts. I listened to the videos of several religious scholars like Dr Justin Sledge, who made two videos, discussing the idea of the Demiurge Yaldabaoth being a cruel, vindictive, short-sighted and vain facsimile of Divinity, an imitation of the True God, who tries to play at being a Supreme Deity because he doesn't know where he came from, but at the same time, has the incredible power to create a Universe (a cage binding souls) away from the Pleuroma.
It was Adams Ribosomes that Eve was taken out of!
Probably because the collators of the final inclusion of the writings that would comprise the bible decided that including 11 conflicting stories about Genesis would make it too obvious that they were just making it all up and culled it down to 2.
Chapter two starts with the end of chapter 1 and then is the rest of day 6. You can easily slot chapter 2 into day 6 in chapter 1 and it's all one story that ends with God resting on day 7. Chapter 3 is sometime after day 7.
I've been wondering this 🤔
There’s also the small matter that the Priestly account (Genesis 1) calls God “Elohim” (“God” in the KJV and many other translations) while the earlier Genesis 2 account calls Him “YHWH El” (“the Lᴏʀᴅ God” in the KJV and many other translations).
I have all the same Marvel posters in the background 👍 excellent choices.
7:00 It was beautifully timed. I wouldn't have said a thing and just called it spirit
I'm curious about other archival contrasts, please
There is also a third creation account: Genesis 5:1-2, which blends the Priestly and Yahwist sources, but is introduced with a title, as though it were intended to be the start of scripture ("This is the book of the generations of Adam.") You could actually omit Genesis 1-4 and improve the coherence of the Old Testament. You'd only run into difficulty upon reaching Paul's epistles, which are so dependent on Genesis 2-3.
The word "tzelem" is Dan misremembering "tzela", which doesn't mean "side", it means "rib bone". "tzelem" in any case means image, not side, and it has nothing to do with "tzela". This is not a small error.
Similarly how Cain isn’t listed as Adam’s son in Gen 5 genealogy
Were humans created last as the pinnacle of creation, or because they are not able to survive without all that was created before them? While I do not believe in god, I think there is sthg quite admirable in this second myth: we cannot live without the planet/minerals, water, air, plants, other animals. This makes sense and is worth reflecting on in our days of polution and global warming.
Hi Dan, could you comment on the scholarly consensus for how "change my mind" is used in Jeremiah 18?
He covers this in his video "Was Jesus a failed prophet?" and his followup video "Responding to InspiringPhilosophy on the delayed Parousia"
I suppose this divergences happen with all religions. Zoroastrianism and Hinduism have ideas in common with each other and with other Indo-European mythologies but there are variations depending on when and where those stories developed. If someone tried to create a united doctrine copying and pasting bits and pieces of each one of those traditions, the result would also be messy, inconsistent and contradictory.
Is your camera an Insta-360 or similar type that zooms/follows based on hand movements?
Excellent video - will try to have mu mom watch it with me - she need to learn this stuff.
I understand you are a scholar. But do you subscribe to Christianity or any religion? Just asking for my own info. I really like your explanations on the bible in it's context
He's a Mormon.
yes he does, he has said so many times
The next error is "Bereshit bara elohim". While "bereshit" does mean "in the beginning (of something)", the verb "bara" does not allow that (of something) to be the creation, because it would be UNGRAMMATICAL. To say "In the beginning of God's creation..." it would have to be a different verb-form, "Bereshit bro Elohim". This is a universal fact of Hebrew grammar that is only considered debatable to people who don't speak the langauge with any fluency. Like Dan. This is rank incompetence.
Genesis 1 has the chaotic waters that still need to be addressed. Chaos is not good. On the second day God separates the waters above from the waters below and there is no statement about the goodness of this. It's the only day it's absent. I'm pretty sure the authors did that on purpose.
Next time Dan, I'll make the camera drift slowly to the left.😄
This guy knows some maneuvers!
6:59 Easy to answer the camera thing. Ghosts. Or,...the machines are just beginning to become aware and will soon be our over-lords.
Carry on.
How do you see Jacob Wright's work on this; Why the Bible was Written"?
Maybe god just has bad grammar, and he didn't notice because he was outside of time and space when he said it all at once forever and anyone who heard the word of god was driven mad by its cosmic horror ubermensch absurdity
That was beyond mere mortals to comprehend because they are not all at once forever
Like the bagel from that movie
That was a parody of the metaphysics of everything everywhere all at once,
Which i forgot the name of
❤ u! Secondly, a request: do you have videos about grammar itself. Like explaining more of plu perfects and other hiphils, hophils, verb tenses etc. I’d love to learn that stuff to follow you better. Thank you regardless.
The question that occurs is why did they keep the two together?
Pure and Utter!
What scholarly sources would I look at to understand how and why we have the verses and chapters we have now? Because it seems to me like it would have made more sense to break the chapters up when we switch accounts, but instead we switch accounts part way through the middle of a verse near but not at the beginning of chapter 2. And I can't remember any specific other examples but I know I have seen other verse and chapter breaks that seem odd to put it mildly.
(And yes I understand the utility of not changing it now that people are used to how it has been done)
Could imagine what a shit show a debate between gospel authors would be. The H word would be flying.
Could it be also that early Hebrews might have been exposed to other earlier creation stories from different cultures so that having two different stories (with similarities) of creation did not seem all that odd to the priests?
Imagine if there was a creation story (or stories) that had already existed for some time in neighboring cultures that the earliest Hebrews knew about. They could easily adopt and modify these creation stories instead of coming up with their own from scratch. I mean, would early Hebrews be more likely to come up with a totally new creation story of their own that no one in that region had ever heard before or would they have incorporated some elements of other creation stories that had been circulating around them for many years possibly?
OR would it be a coincidence if creation stories from that region have similarities even when you take into account that the stories are trying to explain creation? Creation accounts of the world can look vastly different depending on the ancient culture. Sure, there are probably going to be SOME similarities but I wonder how many similarities are required before we can say there is a high probability that a specific culture adopted a creation story or some elements of a creation story from another.
Adam should have picked an animal companion to mock god.
Lucky for all of us that he didn't say that the orangutan or the chimpanzee was "close enough". And that he resisted the charms of the sheep.
@roytee3127 yes, luckily adam forced god's hand to make a woman.
9:21……Mostly….
Day Two, Gen 1:6-8, the separation of water, the Sky-Dome creation lacks God seeing it was good. I am mildly curious as to whether this was a simple omission or one done with intent.
eve was created form adam's side sounds much much more similar to the etiological myth for pair bonding that is in Plato
s symposium.
The next egregious error in Hebrew is "Barishona". This is not even a Hebrew word. It can't be substituted in any way for "bereshit", it sounds terrible, it's completely wrong. One correct word for this sentiment would be "Betchila". But the interesting thing is that "Bereshit" works just by itself, because, when it's "Bereshit bara Elohim" it has nothing to attach to, there's nothing it is "the beginning of", so it sounds like the beginning of time, exactly as every reader understood it since the Septuagint.
The Criswell Study Bible has a ton of footnotes. At the start of Genesis, he brings up "the gap theory" which I am sure you are aware. I feel he was trying to find a way to spin the scientific evidence and Bible are in sync which I laugh at now. Would appreciate your doing on his use of this "theory"
We need a video on what the Hell happened to Frank Miller...
Gen 1 is most accurately translated by the NRSVue. I have lost respect for the NASB 95 and later and the ESV which are claimed to be more literal but are influenced by evangelical doctrine.
I guess but doesn't this make more assumptions tho? These passengers are like back to back . I would feel this to be more the about passengers that are further apart in certain books ,which makes it easier to believe that there were edits or additions as time moved on and new generations change things. But I feel it's a bit of a reach to assumes that is changed with and both at the same time the next generations wants to simply keep both for preservation reasons. Like do we see that to be the case in other places too? If they wanted to change it then why not delete the one ? Like it's hard to say that time would effect passages that are literally hugging each other. Couldn't it be talking about 2 things or rather a different aspect of the one thing? We may say that it's also an assumption for all or any verses or chapters to by necessity to agree, which i agree on that, but I don't think it's a far reaching assumption that 2 sentences next to each other should share some kind of agreement, unless we are missing a full paragraph of information between them ... usally we go with the idea that requires less assumptions because then the assumptions are doing the heavy lifting. I just don't see why the preceding generations of nobles would seek to change but then keep the thing that didn't like. When we seem to see things being taken out ,added or replaced outright .
Hello, thank you for your video, I really appreciate your content on this channel, Data->Dogma and other channel where you appear.
I was interested if you could make a video or maybe point to some other video or a resourse about the history and etymology of the titles of the books in the Bible in different languages.
Since English isn't my native language, when I first started reasearching, reading and trying to see the Bible from different perspectives and languages, I was very surprised when found so many differences in the spelling of some words, names and so on, and even whole new words for describing or calling something or someone, so much so, that, for example, in my native languages, Russian and Ukrainian, the first book of the Bible is called "Бытие" and "Буття", respectively, which I've never truly understood, what is the connection, in English, as I see it, the closest words which would be equivalent are "Being", "Reality", "Existence" and similar, I don't know what it has to do with creation specifically, while in English translations, the title of the book is "Genesis", the root of which we do actually use both in Russian and Ukranian for expressing the meanning of creating or generating something, most often in technical or scientific terms but can also use it in more common ones.
Some other books mean and sound almost the same, while others are so different, as well as the meaning of some words in their contents, that it's like I'm ready different texts all together.
Currently, I'm not religious, and yet, these topics still fascinate and intrigue me, the Bible as well as other ancienct texts are so much richer and deeper when you can look for, find and uncover layers upon layers of history, traditions, individuals' points of view, practices, cultures and so much more, it's like a connection through time 😊
In any case, you don't have to necessarily reply, since I understand that there are much more important and urgent topicts to discuss to help people develop critical thinking skills, see and understand the Bible and its history more objectively, which you manage to do excellently
Because it's a backwards literary mirror.
You can tell that different authors are involved just by looking at how God is named. Genesis 1 speaks of God and in Genesis 2 it is Lord God. Progressing through Genesis you may note that texts addressing the Lord God are also those that have led to modern thought about the fault and inferiority of women and darker skinned persons. Interesting?
Genesis 2:19 New World Translation
Now Jehovah God had been forming from the ground every wild animal of the field and every flying creature of the heavens, and he began bringing them to the man to see what he would call each one
1. The name of the patron deity of Israel is yahweh( YHWH or transliterated as adonie), not Jehovah. The letter J didn't exist until the 16th century and when in late Germanic dialects Ys were pronounced as Js and Ws as Vs. 2. Wild animals and birds( which people falsely believed bats were birds) weren't created by Golem Spells. 3. They didn't all magically come to be named.
Also, how exactly is this relevant in any way? This doesn't change the fact that there are numerous creation stories that almost all contradict each other.
@jackkrell4238 "had been forming" is my point, I'm not sure how they got to that translation
@ The NWT is flawed, to say the least.
What is that thumbnail expression lol?
Wait, when did you pass 100k?
14 min is perfect 👍
The sons of God in Genesis 6-2 are also these 70 gods? YHWH is one of the sons of God that took a human wife and had children with her?
What if the first creation account was the True god and the second account was the demiurge?!?
Genesis: 1 credits El "the head Canaanite god"
Genesis: 2 credits El-Yahweh "the second tier god of Israel"
Deuteronomy 32:8-9 (Dead Sea Scrolls)
When Elyon divided the nations, when he separated the sons of Adam, he established the borders of the nations according to the number of the sons of the gods. Yahweh’s portion was his people, [Israel] his allotted inheritance.
@maklelan 11:52 I've read that there is no explicit pluperfect in Ancient Hebrew, and that "had created" is a valid interpretation given the context (and yes I've just watched the context video too, loved it). Could you (or anyone else) give a definitive explanation why this cannot be interpreted as pluperfect?
He talked about this in another video, (and maybe also on Data over Dogma), but from what I remember, there is a way to do the pluperfect in Hebrew, and the way the the story in Gen 2 is structured is not it. I don't remember the exact grammatical verb form names, but the story in Gen 2 uses an uninterrupted series of the same form of verb, which always indicates a series of events that happened in the order described. For the pluperfect in Hebrew, you would have to have a different form of a verb that interrupts the series of past tense verbs.
@robertmauck4975 I'm working my way through the DOD podcasts, so I'll keep an eye (ear?) out for it.