What breaks me is how in private conversations with friends who are pastors or theology teachers (I live in a seminary town), they will concede many points. But from the pulpit or from the classroom, all the concessions are gone. I think they see themselves as parents who must safeguard their children from the existential fears of adulthood. Frustrating. Also heartbreaking. I feel quite isolated.
I remember experiencing that too. When they seem capable of nuance in private but not in public, you can know that they know they are doing wrong and have chosen to do it anyway. I'm really sorry it's happening to you too, there are lots of people outside that environment who agree with you that that isn't right.
That's my FIL. Since my deconstruction, he's liked to have theological talks with me. In one of our discussions, I brought up how messed up the story of the fall is, with God definitely setting man up for failure. He told me "yeah, I don't buy it." Two weeks later, he starts a sermon series leading up to Jesus's birth, and of course he starts in Genesis 2:4. Any mention of it just being an allegory? Nope.
In seminary many learn about the sacred text like any scholar and then take courses in how to talk about these matters with nonacademics from the pulpit. It's like the rules of reading a bedtime story to your children: do not vary by even one word of expectation or your children will scream, holler, and cry.
@@Rhewin I see no problem with the story of the fall whatsoever. There is no indication in the story that humans were never supposed to know the knowledge of good and evil ever. Even the early church didn't see this in the text. It's basically the equivalent of having a car in the garage and telling your kids that they are prohibited from driving the car. One day they will be able to drive the car, but just not yet. This doesn't mean that the kids don't have the capability to steal the keys and go for a joyride.
That was breathtakingly good! Dan has used the term “renegotiate” in several vids and I was never sure that I was completely understanding his usage. The last few minutes of this video put a lot of the contradictions within the Bible into context, particularly in terms of people’s interpretations (or their parsing of “priority” passages versus “downplayed or ignored” passages) being driven by their faith traditions, the doctrines of their particular sects, and their identity politics. Love the notion that humans use the Bible as the “proof text.” I must admit that I love to watch Dan’s videos for his research and scrupulously data-driven approach and recognition of human cognitive/belief tendencies, although I consider myself an atheist.
@@MarcillaSmith I think - if I understand you - that Dan’s comments imply no such acceptance of papal authority. I understood him to mean that all faiths “renegotiate” biblical statements - that is, they emphasize what they like and downplay what they don’t- to buttress that particular faith’s doctrines. Given the multitude of Christian sects, each with its own doctrinal tenants, I don’t think you could say that Dan’s concept implies acceptance of any one faith. Perhaps you were being sarcastic; not even all Roman Catholics accept the authority of the Holy See, as many conservative American Catholics and their bishops disagree strongly with Pope Francis.
@@cedarwaxwing3509 Disagreeing with the Pope is one of the oldest of the Apostolic traditions. Still, there is a gulf that separates disagreement from disobedience. As for "renegotiating," I disagree that all faiths do so with the Bible. Hindus certainly don't. Muslims don't - they have the Qur'an to clarify. In fact, I'd say that the only people who necessarily _have_ to make these "renegotiations" are the sorts of Bible-Worshippers who elevate the authority of a book over and above the Word of God, Who is our lord Jesus, Who gave the Keys to the Kingdom to Pope Saint Peter. Those of us who submit to this authority might be said to belong to the Church which "negotiated" what would and wouldn't be canonized in the first place. It could also be said that our scribes edited the scriptures for various reasons under different circumstances. But that's just the point: our Anointed Salvation - the Divine _Logos_ gave the head of the Church such authority that what He binds on earth is bound in heaven. And yet, people will make an idol of the book, while accusing the Church which published it of being the "real" idolators. I mean, I get how people fall into it, myself not being a cradle Catholic, but once the fact are presented, IDK how people can persist in their schism.
One of the best videos among many very good ones! For me, one of the most fascinating things about the Bible, and especially the OT is how it shows the evolution of the Abrahamic religions. Your videos have deepened my understanding of this “evolution” quite a lot, and I appreciate it. I do have a couple of questions I would like to ask you about the Bible that I hope you can shed more light on, or correct me on.
Thank you for making this video. Between a certain commenter on here and a couple of cultists within my extended family circle, I know too many people who will ignore the plain faced reading of the text where it says the characters see God's face.
Apologism (as in religious apologism) is different (and has a distinct, though related root origin) from our typical understanding of the word "apologize".
@@Christian-Man No, you don't. You'll make great educated points that will never sink in for them, and they'll double down on their belief. Exactly the same as Christian apologists. When someone starts with the presumption that their holy book is the inspired word of God, it does not matter what you say unless they're open to critically examining it themselves.
I have seen Evangelicals question Joseph Smith's First Vision because "no one has seen god." I don't believe Smith saw God, but it's interesting how they try to explain away passages in the Hebrew Bible in which men clearly see God. The hoops they have to jump through to make it work.
Do you wonder if it is possible to see God? I don't believe JS saw God either. Do you believe JS face showed up on Brigham Young's face? I don't believe it. However, I do know a face can show up on another person's face because I have seen it. That experience was a warning to me of which I did not listen. I believe it can happen to others if they are open to those experiences. Or is it due to other reasons?
Everyone should questions Smith's MULTIPLE first vision accounts. Even Dan will admit the data say that the BOM is a 19th century product and NOT of ancient origin. Data over dogma 👍.
Yeah. Alternatively, you can take the idea in John as the truth and presume those instances in the OT were just examples of deluded people taking for God beings that are not. The Marcionites did this. They thought the OT didn't have anything to do with the NT.
Yeah like the two above comments you just have to acknowledge that Bible is no God or that it is univocal and that it instead presents many different contradicting views about the divine and other topics and choose the one that suits us
As a believer, I don't need or expect the Bible to be God breathed and perfect. First I need to decide if I'm created or popped into existence as some accident. Once I decided I was created I looked to the implications of that. What are my responsibilities? What's my purpose? How am I to use this life? Next, I looked for what Ive encountered that not only provides the best answers to those questions but that I personally connect with (I expect to have a connection to what created me). Christianity has hands down provided that, and the Bible as a vehicle of a message for my life is totally perfect, even if not perfect from a legalistic reading of it. I do believe Jesus is historical and the New Testament captures his life as far as is needed to guide mine.
I always learn so much about the Bible from these videos, and I'm very familiar with the Bible. But these videos bring in context that i definitely don't have access to! 👍👍👍
Even if one believes in bible inerrancy, one must still deal with the contradictions. Ignoring them seems to be the common way they do this. But that still does not resolve the contradictions. Renegotiation is only viable for the pliable.
As a mystic I would argue that holding the contradictions together as a single unit is a deep part of the mystery of God. It sounds absurd and impossible but it is in fact possible and still quite absurd.
I've been trying to put this into words so long. I used to do this all the time before I deconstructed, and I wasn't even consciously aware I was doing it. The reinterpretation just seemed so obviously true. The words on the page just didn't matter.
Ironically, it's those supposedly platonic Christians who actually had the least problem with those anthropomorphic passages. Why? It's all things to a little something called the trinity. From the very beginning, the church fathers understood those appearances of God in the old testament as Christ prior to his incarnation because the very same gospel of John that says no one has seen God also describes Jesus as the icon or image of the father.
I think the frightening thing for many when grappling with this is that whatever life-anchoring, life-orienting, life-governing "Truth" in this is whatever our community deems so. It doesn't literally exist. I'm not sure what satisfying alternative to offer people looking for eternal guidance and meaning, when we _deeply believe_ in our bones we need timeless divine truth to find meaning and to shape our lives.
You don't tell them anything. You leave them alone because unless you have incontrovertible prove they are wrong, you would be doing more harm than good. I myself believe in God, but even if I didn't, I would follow many traditional moral values associated with traditional religions because I would argue that evolutionarily speaking, they have lead to functional human societies. When I say functional, I mean equipped for long-term survival. Look at what the radical movements like the sexual revolution have brought upon western civilization. While some good has come from contraception, it has also led to disturbingly low birth rates that are so unsustainable that the entire industrial luxurious form of life we have grown accustomed to is on the verge of collapse simply because we aren't fucking enough. it's telling that some of the most atheistic countries in the world are resorting to importing tens of thousands of people from largely traditional theistic cultures just to have enough manpower to support modern life as we know it. I mean I guess if someone isn't going to have kids, this won't matter. They will be dead and gone and leave others to deal with the consequences. But for future generations, being a CEO or boss babe will no longer be an option because they will be too busy just trying to find a basic blue-collar job to pay the bills. So you have secular societies that are technologically more advanced, but also have high rates of depression, hedonism and nihilism and seem to be unable to do some thing as basic as sustaining a large enough population to maintain the lifestyle they pride themselves on. Meanwhile you have religious and traditional societies that on average might be less technologically advanced, but who do you think is better equipped to survive The collapse of the global economy? A fragile technologically dependent civilization, or some religious goat herder's in the mountains of Afghanistan or subsistence farmers in Africa?
Meaning and purpose is whatever it is that we want. If you are lost in morality, there's always this universal rule that has always existed: Never do to others what you don't want to happen to you.
Some, on the basis of texts speaking of Jesus’ being seen “coming in clouds with great power and glory” (Mr 13:26; Re 1:7), conclude that the use of clouds in connection with other divine manifestations suggests invisibility rather than visibility. So, too, ‘seeing’ can refer to figurative sight, perception with the mind and heart. (Isa 44:18; Jer 5:21; Eze 12:2, 3; Mt 13:13-16; Eph 1:17, 18) To deny this would be to deny that the opposite of sight, namely, blindness, could be used in a figurative or spiritual, rather than literal, sense. Yet Jesus clearly used both sight and blindness in such a figurative or spiritual sense. (Joh 9:39-41; Re 3:14-18; compare also 2Co 4:4; 2Pe 1:9.) Job, being spoken to by Jehovah “out of the windstorm” (likely accompanied by clouds), afterward said: “In hearsay I have heard about you, but now my own eye does see you.” (Job 38:1; 42:5) This, too, must have been by perception of mind and heart rather than the literal eye, in view of the clear Scriptural teaching that “no man has seen God at any time.”-Joh 1:18; 5:37; 6:46; 1Jo 4:12.
Really interesting stuff. What you described is what I’ve heard others refer to as theory crafting. It’s something that Christians, Muslims, Mormons, Jedi (amongst other groups) do in order to preserve the coherence of their sacred texts (or movies) by eliminating contradictions. One good example is the presence of CRT screens in the 1970s and 80s Star Wars movies and LCD screens in the 00’s Star Wars prequels. If the prequels happened before the original Star Wars films chronologically, why are the screens better than the original films? Well, it’s obvious why this is the case, but it still needs to be explained away in order to keep the Star Wars mythology coherent. You could say that the prequels had more advanced screens because after the outbreak of war, much of the new technology was destroyed which meant the two sides had to break out the old tech. That seems like an acceptable excuse and, just like that, the contradiction is resolved. With Mormonism, you could say that the gold tablets that Joseph Smith supposedly carried around could not have been gold because they would have been way too heavy for one man to carry. It just isn’t reasonable to believe one man could do it. But what if the tablets were made of wood and they were just gold plated? That works, and it clears up the “plot hole.” All of this is to say that this sort of theory crafting can be done for almost any topic. This is why pointing out a contradiction in the Bible is a fruitless way to argue with Christians because there is always some way to explain it away and retain belief in the Christian god. Anyway, thanks for the video. It’s always good to hear thoughtful, knowledgeable people speak honestly about the Bible.
The joke about lawyers and politicians can easily apply to apolohists: How can you tell when an apologist is lying? When their lips are moving. Or in the case of posts - when their keyboards are being tapped. 🤣
There's no lying involved here. First of all, lots of Christians affirm appearances of God in the Old Testament, unlike what the video suggests. It's actually a very common point in Christian interpretations of the OT. Secondly, interpreting the Bible in light of a theological presupposition that it comes from a single source is not lying or even irrational, it's just operating under different presuppositions.
Well, it can’t. It’s a very shoddy instrument for providing the certainty that many Christians crave and it’s why they often appear to be dumdums. But the Bible is also a rich source for people who are trying to puzzle out their own faith, belief, and relationship with a deity and the universe.
If two different conceptualizations of God are expressed in two different parts of the Bible and each conceptualization depended on the context in which it was developed, that does not make the contradiction disappear. This proves that in all cases the conceptualizations of God depend on the cultural context. Culture and understanding of reality varies as humanity develops. The Christian religion attempts to argue that there is only one valid interpretation of spiritual truth. Contradictions not only appear between different cultural contexts. They are intrinsic to Christianity.
@@MrMortal_RaI don’t think so. The most common apologetic response to the Genesis verse is the phrase “face-to-face” which may indicate that it wasn’t literal. Just like seeing “eye-to-eye” with someone doesn’t literally mean you’re staring at each others’ eyes. Conceptualizing it as different entities may be more of a skeptical approach. Similar to how some people say the God of the Old Testament is different than the God of the New Testament. Just to clarify, I don’t necessarily agree with either viewpoints that I just stated. I’m simply citing the most common apologist response, in my experience.
The closing is ... wow! Just a slam dunk! There isn't a single doctrine in all of Christendom that isn't argued and disagreed. Trinity? Virgin Conception? Substitutiary Atonement? TULIP? Jesus being God? Nope. They're all items of conflict. How could that be? Everyone just takes the wide variety of positions put forward in the Bible as a way to prooftext what they feel morality and religion ought to be.
I think Dan has an episode on the I am section. I think he pretty much agrees with me, not that that means anything! More broadly, the Jesus in John is dramatically different from the synoptic gospels. It was written around 100, long after Jesus died. There had been plenty of time for the myths surrounding Jesus to grow
I like how you admit that you accept the passages that verify what you say and that you have to change the ones you don't. At least you are being honest with it instead of people like Ken Ham and William Lane Craig who just say that it is both ways. However, I do respect them in the dedication to biblical literalism. "The earth is flat and round" and when they say that the world is only 6k years old even though everything points to an older earth, but since the bible says "flat and young" that's how they believe it to be. A reinterpreting of the bible is what Jews do all the time. That's why they say the Torah is a living text that evolves with time.
Dr. McClellan: You make a strong argument that perspectives / ideas / concepts change over time. However, based on what I've read, and been told by Jewish Orthodox rabbis, Israelites living in the Kingdom of Israel, studied Torah in Hebrew - as they do today - rather than Greek, and that Christian apologists, or even atheists, love to argue against traditional Judaic concepts - especially regarding messiah - from the Pentateuch, and/or Septuagint - rather than the Hebrew of the Tanakh - because the former has a few subtle differences in translation that are somewhat beneficial to Christian apologists, e.g., Isaiah 7:14, but only if the overall context of the passage, and the totality of Torah is ignored. Personally, I am NOT religious, and view all religions as humankind's attempt to answer classic questions such as, why are we here, why do the good die young, and will I see my family and friends after I die? And religion also serves a role as a governing force to maintain order in societies, or at the very least, is a cultural glue that helps to hold groups together, or create an identity, or provide some "moral" guidelines.
Woah! Woah! Woah! Hold the phone! You’ve spoken with Israelites living in the Kingdom of Israel? Did this involve traveling back in time to before 720 BCE or were you using spirit mediums to speak with the dead? However you accomplished it, this is stunning news that you are in communication with people living between 930 and 720 BCE. Consider my mind blown.
Question on Exodus 33:11: The New Oxford Annotated Bible (5th edition) has a footnote for the verse stating "*Face to face,* an expression of intimacy available only to Moses rather than an indication that he literally sees God's face" What's your take on this assertion? It sounds like blatant apologetics to me, but the NOAB generally doesn't stoop to that sort of thing.
My understanding of ancient Hebrew from a perspective informed by rabbinical literature is that "face to face" means "in person" as opposed to "in a dream", per se. Jacob, for instance, laid his head down on a stone and then "saw" a ladder or staircase up to heaven with angels on it. He says he was there in person, and then gave the place a name that invoked a name of God. Moses saw some aspect of God on a mountain while his eyes were open so he saw the "hindmost part" (least "face"-like part) "face to face" = "in person".
I have the book josephus and in it Adam and Eve had more children than just Cain and Abel...plus much more information. The book of Jubilees talks about Adam and Eve having more children. It's also gives more insight on Noah and the ark after the flood and a breakdown of the Moon cycles, and that later in our generations we wouldn't no longer fully understand the feast days or the seasons...when it talks about seasons its not in reference to spring, summer etc but it references the seasons as important holy days. Jesus ascended into heaven and it also talks about the ascension of Isaiah in a book on Isaiah. The Enoch books talks about Mazzaroth and the gates of the sun and Moon cycles. It's another book I can't remember but it helps understand their ages like Methuselah living to be 900 plus years old but when you break it's symbolic numerology down he was actually around 15 to 17yrs old when he fathered Lamech. And Lamech is a coded name. For example Jesus being the Son of God also coded to represent the Sun of God and Jesus says he is the truth the LIGHT and the way. God bless everyone. I pray we all share knowledge and deeper understanding to God's word which purely sacred and holds powerful meanings in higher learning,light and understanding in Wisdom..
I'm confused. Most Jews (as far as I know) do not believe God has a physical body but rather is purely a spirit or incorporeal, and that most of the Old Testament descriptions for God is anthropomorphic, or merely imagery. A common example used to back this up is Deuteronomy 4:15.
Wow. The idea that our interpretation of the Bible is subordinated by our traditions is a terrible thought. It's why I'm no longer Christian, and why I refuse to ever go back.
Christians have literally always argued that God showed up in an ostensibly physical form in the Old Testament, and have identified those appearances with the pre-incarnate Jesus since at least Justin Martyr.
Correct me if I'm wrong, or misunderstanding the quality of the "god" of Christianity. It is said that this "god" is omnipresent. So how could it ever be that someone would "see his face and die", or that Moses could "look upon the god's backside" if this entity is actually omnipresent?
Curious question, where do you say would be the time frame of the angel be inserted into the text from the original meaning? Or any books to read about it?
Dr McClellan says: "The conceptualization of 'God' changed between [time X] and [time Y] ..." and I hear: "They gave new powers to their super-powered superhero."
So God changed from the Old testament where he was all-powerful to a complete change in the new testament where he was all-powerful. Nothing new was added. You're just hoping that this video is correct so you don't have to actually read.
@@president234 You are the one who needs to read, I fear. If you cannot spot some obvious differences between the "God" of the OT and the "God" of the NT, you are not looking.
@@Nai61a ok since I'm so ignorant educate me. What are the differences from the All-powerful God of the Old Testament vs the All-powerful God of the New Testament?
@@president234 You do not really need me to tell you this, but genocide seems to disappear in the NT, "God" gets himself a son to represent him and this son puts the emphasis on love, gentleness and forgiveness - if you listen to the Christians. Jealousy and wrath are not major themes. The "God" of the NT is invisible but was not so in the OT. The more interesting fact is that the "God" of the Old Testament is not and could never be, the "God" of the New Testament. The Jews will tell you this. It was masterly sleight of hand by the early Christians to link the OT and NT together, but it is entirely unjustified and, frankly, insulting to Jews. Imagine if the Quran were published with the New Testament as its "foundational text".
Theists approach the Bible the same way they approach everything else; start with the conclusion you want to believe and ignore or misrepresent everything that doesn't support that conclusion.
Agreed. From the theists I've seen in Dan's shorts and in his comment secction, begging the question/circular reasoning tends to be the main ingredient of their mental diarrhea. 😆
Incorrect. They saw him by faith, not by their carnal eyes. [2Co 4:18 KJV] While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal.
Interpreting the Bible with the Genesis 1 character and the Genesis 2 character as the exact same character generates near 70,000 contradictions. Interpreting the Bible with the Genesis 1 character and the Genesis 2 character as polar opposite characters is non-contradictory. (Contradictions are man-made errors)
What is the evidence that this evolution in God’s conceptualization is an influx from greek philosophy, as you suggest? Once one already finds in D, which is considered post-exilic?
I use socratic method to show the problems I see with the bible and christianity. Now socratic method is asking and ANSWERING questions but I find a lot of christians avoid my questions so I cant move on to the next step. Its very frustrating and makes christians look dishonest like politicians who avoid simple questions. So here are 2 sets of questions I mainly use. People of all kinds please state if you are christian or muslim, atheists, agnostics or any combination of those and then if willing participate in the test. As well, looking for 5 good moral theist questions for atheists/agnostics. #1 You see a child drowning in a shallow pool and notice a person just watching that is able to save the child with no risk to themselves but is not, is that persons non action moral? #2 If you go to save the child, the man tells you to stop as he was told it was for the greater good, but he does not know what that is, do you continue to save the child? #3 Is it an act of justice to punish innocent people for the crimes of others? #4 If you were able to stop it and knew a person was about to grape a child would you stop it? #5 Would you consider a parent who put their kids in a room with a poison fruit and told the kids not to eat it but then also put the best con artist in the room with the children knowing the con artist will get the kids to eat the fruit and the parent does nothing to stop it a good parent? I have kept track of answers and non answers and who is responding. Atheists and agnostics are nearly 100% at answering these simple moral questions while christians are less then 18% and muslims are less then 7%. #1 If you were brainwashed would you know it? #2 If someone said they had a test for brainwashing, would you want to take it? #3 If they then said, if you cannot answer these questions, that means your brainwashed, would you be giving it 100% effort to answer those questions? All criminals are caught red handed of murder 100% guilty and show no remorse. The judges always apply the perfect amount of punishment. All things being equal and for arguments sake. Now I will give an example. There are 4 judges and 10 guilty criminals. Judge #1 orders punishment for all 10 criminals and does not forgive without punishment a single one. Judge #2 forgives without punishment all 10 criminals. Judge #3 forgives without punishment 9 of them and punishes 1 of them. Judge #4 punishes 9 of them and forgives without punishment 1 of them. #4 Which judge is the most/maximally just? #5 Which judge is the most/maximally forgiving? #6 Is judge #3 either most/maximally forgiving or most just? #7 Is judge #4 most/maximally forgiving or most just? #8 Is it possible for any judge to be both most/maximally forgiving and most/maximally just? With the judge questions again, atheists and agnostics are nearly 100% while christians and muslims are less then 3%. The real problem is denial and not being able to admit you might be wrong. Please, show me how you make these contradictions go away. Objective morals do not change over time so you cant use that excuse on the moral questions.
@@clearstonewindows >>You should probably read the book of mormon for answers to these questions"" You are in the book of mormon and I can find your answers there? You cant answer the question is it just to punish the innocent for the crimes of others? You could not see the implications of being brainwashed if you avoid answering the judge questions that are pretty much done by definition for you? Does it look honest when politicians avoid questions?
@@clearstonewindows ROFLMAO. I know they are my questions, what are YOUR answers? OH YA, you dont answer just like a dishonest politician. Your religion has broken your brain, you cant even answer simple moral questions. How can I use the socratic method if you dont answer the questions?
T the first five questions my answer is no but they miss the point of the Biblical passeges they reference. For example God put the forbiden fruit in the garden of Eden because God values free will even if people make stupid decisions with it but this was the only source of sin in Eden so people still could live without sin The next set of questions my answers are yes To the next set of questons -the first -the second -mostly forgiving because he is inconsistent thus inpredictible and so unjust -nether for the reasons above but he is not mercifull -both. It is rather simple if they show true honest remorse fogive them or shorten there sentance if not, not Forgivnes is important but guilt has to proceed it. For the example in the video I like to think that these accounts of seemg God sre conceptual metafores.
Isn't God in the P source ( 6-5th century BC) also transcendent ? I think it is more evident that the Jews understood their God as beyond form on their own independently of the Greek tradition that came later. And the two powers in heaven controversy spans a lot of old testament verses that your hypothesis does not cover especially with fact that in the ancient middle east god's identify tent to be fluid.
Hello Dr. McClellan, I want to be a Biblical Unitarian. I think Jesus didn't undersant himself to be God therefore he is not God. But I think there are verses in the Bible that depict Jesus as God and I think there are verses that put words into Jesus' mouth as if he was claiming to be God . My question is would it be theologically consistent move for me to see these verses that depict Jesus as God and as if he was claming to be God as both theological and historical errors in the Bible and ignore those verses and hold the Unitarian view of God(denying the view that Jesus is God)?
The verses that seem to show Jesus claiming to be god are just Jesus claiming a form of deity. (Actually it wasn’t Jesus doing the claiming. It was the author of the gospel.) There are many gradations of “deity” in ancient Jewish/christian thought. Angels, for example, are a form of deity.
Question; "I think there are verses in the Bible that depict Jesus as God" is it a problem for you that critical scholars say that this doesn't really happen and that trinitarianism is nowhere in the Bible and that this understanding of various passages is a result of later developments/renegotiations of the text's meaning? If all you care about is your own reading of the text, then "theological consistency" is literally just whatever you decide that it is. In which case there is no point in asking for other people's input. If you are concerned with adhering to the text and getting as close to the various author's intent as possible, then this should be a non-factor for you as it is no longer relevant to your concerns as your initial reading is not grounded in anything which stems from the text itself. Of course, all of this presupposes that Jesus really did say anything that it portrayed in the Bible. Since you're allowing for the fact that people can just claim a Jesus said whatever they want him to have said, at some point you're going to have to ask how it is that you can determine whether any given passage is a real quote. Or any passage at all for that matter.
@@rainbowkrampus I care about biblical authors' intentions as well. And i accepts gospels are unreliable historical documents but there are critetias that scholars use to determine authenticity of Jesus' sayings. I think we can know Jesus believed in works based salvation, and preached God's love is unconditional. Ans he believed in afterlife.
You say that we re-negotiate the bible Dan, but what if we are only concerned with what is actually real. The book says a thing, yeah but did that really happen? I feel that these stories where humans interact with divine beings are just stories. However there are those who take these as literal history. My grandparents on my fathers side were two such people. How do you "negotiate" with them, with people who think that legends and myths are real and historical, in their entirety. So if it says the world was flooded. Then it was flooded, full stop. Never mind that such a thing can't happen. If it says all humans are descended from a man named Adam and a woman named Eve, that's it, FACT, no arguing, despite the fact that our modern understanding of biology and genetics says this doesn't work.
Psalm 34:11 Come, children, listen to me. I will teach you the fear of Yahweh. Compare: John 5 Names of God Bible 37 The Father who sent me testifies on my behalf. *You have never heard his voice, and you have never seen his form.* with: Numbers 12 Names of God Bible 4 Suddenly, Yahweh said to Moses, Aaron, and Miriam, “All three of you come to the tent of meeting.” So all three of them came. 5 Then Yahweh came down in the column of smoke and stood at the entrance to the tent. He called to Aaron and Miriam, and they both came forward. 6 He said, “Listen to my words: When there are prophets of Yahweh among you, I make myself known to them in visions or speak to them in dreams. 7 But this is not the way I treat my servant Moses. He is the most faithful person in my household. *8 I speak with him face to face, plainly and not in riddles. He even sees the form of Yahweh.* Why weren’t you afraid to criticize my servant Moses?” 9 Yahweh was angry with them, so he left.
I have some lovely oceanfront property in Nebraska for sale. You used to see it but now not. It's totally fine. Will that be cashier's check or money order then??
I think an important counter point would be existence of the triniry outside of how he deems it a Greek philosophical understanding of the nature of God. For those who have wrestled, seen, and spoken to God face to face there is the question of which Person. Christ is equally God as the Father, but has a quantifiable form. For God has no beginning or end, Christ can appear as a human. For those that saw God, Christ the Son could have been who they witnessed, full of all diety and glory as the Father, but operable in a physical form.
@@clearstonewindows I'm not saying he was in the flesh, but he had form. He is the only person of the Trinity to have form at any point, for both the Father and the Spirit are purely spiritual
@@yannibelousov3204and the idea of a purely spiritual form comes from Platonic philosophy. Before that influence entered, there wasn’t the idea that a messiah was God.
The other option is when a person saw God in the OT, they were seeing the preincarnate Jesus. This solution highlights a problem with trinity. If Jesus is fully God, then no one should see him either! But Arius really seems to have won, bc most Christians view Jesus as "almost but not quite" God. Even tho Christian churches recite trinitarian creeds. Many Christians still do not aprove of paintings or sculptures of God the Father, but are ok with pictures of Jesus. Despite the creeds, Christians talk like God the Father is the more powerful more divine "really" God part of the trinity. As if the Father is 51% of God, He has a majority vote. Jesus is 25% and the Spirit is 24%. Hey, dont get mad at me, just saying what i observe. I know most Christians would disagree with statement on face value. But im talking about how they talk and act about it, not what the creeds say. Jacob may have thought he didnt favor Joseph above the others, but his words and actions said otherwise.
This can't be the case, since Jesus was only revealed in the time of Peter: 1 peter 1 20 He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake
a kind of hierarchy is built into the creed: the son is begotten of the father, and the spirit proceeds from the father and (maybe also) the son. however, (unless you followed arius) they are of one substance so they are equally divine. john's gospel worked through your issue and resolved it by saying that the invisible god took human form so that we could see him. jesus is god's self-revelation.
@@MusicalRaichu I've read that book many many times And no it doesn't resolve the issue Or at least it only partially does The only way to really resolve this issue is to understand that the writers of the old testament believed god was a corporeal superman and the writers of the new testament believed god was an invisible monotheistic god
So God plays a game of "Now you see me, now you don't, er, can't". Lol It's amazing to see how God and his power have evolved throughout the time that subsequent writers of the books add their own ideas of him. But I realize that happens with all fan fiction; originally, Superman could only "leap tall buildings in a single bound". His ability to fly was written in later. BTW, you'd think that God, if he really was omnipotent, would be able to reveal himself to human beings. Weird that people believe that God can do everything, when the OT clearly shows that there were limitations to his power. And to the religious apologists who follow Dan's channels, no need to post a reply. Really not interested in your tortured "logic" attempting to rationalize the contradictions. And besides, I've most likely muted you, and wouldn't know you replied. 🤣
Well there are many ways to interpret scripture which absolve these contradictions. I like (for example) to think that these are conseptual metafores. Also it is interesting how much biblical literalism is around people who try to Interpret the Bible but aren't christian
The Vulgate is late, so this makes no sense. Are you really positing a late addition based off of the *Vulgate* dropping a word? Are the attestations of the Masorah, Samaritan, and Septuagint nothing to you? Were they all caught by this mysterious redactor hundreds of years after they diverged, despite their disparate reading communities?
KJV Exodus 24:10 And they saw the God of Israel: and there was under his feet as it were a paved work of a sapphire stone, and as it were the body of heaven in his clearness. The KJV obviously didnt change the verse as you are claiming so that proves your whole greek tradition and twisting scriptures to be false And all of those verses mentioned God was never fully revealing himself regardless of being an Angel or God himself. So either way the scriptures you quoted, God was never fully revealed. It seems more like youre wanting the Bible to be renegotiated rather than actually paying attention to what the scriptures actually are saying.
Each is free to believe what he wants, but I get upset that each time a contradiction is highlighted, some apologist comes along to find a way to explain the contradiction.
The bible has always been subordinate to the church, for the important reason that there would be no bible without it. We canonized it, we collected it, we edited it, we preserved it. As such the authority to interpret it rests with the tradition of the church. I know that makes many squirm, and possibly Dan as well, but it doesn't even make sense to speak of scripture if there is no church making it scripture.
Dan, you often talk about there not being Univocality in the Bible, but you rarely talk about the relationships between these various books of scripture. Obviously, the Hebrews and the Christians both viewed these writings as connected to their faith in a way that sets these writings apart from others so I’m not really sure what you’re trying to tell us other than the very specific idea that these were written for a particular time and place only. But if that’s true then why do these believers collect these writings together and use them for study and edification?
Is your desire to disprove the inaccuracy of people who believe things about the Bible that are incorrect based on factual, historical, and academic standards? If so, then why stop at the Bible? Will you also do your work on the Quran and the Bhagavad Gita, The Holy Book of Hindus, or the Talmud? And once again... I am sincerely asking you the question as a truth seeker. What do you say is the way to eternal salvation?
Dan doesn’t say there is a way to eternal salvation. What he does say is that each of us must work it out for ourselves. In the context of Christians who follow the Bible, he says they need to negotiate that for themselves. The problem arises when abrogate that negotiation to others with ulterior motives.
![that's a red flag? but I do that.... [cc]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/NkLM8HTYY1g/mqdefault.jpg)
![NISAMANEE - TADA (ท้าดา) [ OFFICIAL MV ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/hcQHEPMmJpU/mqdefault.jpg)
What breaks me is how in private conversations with friends who are pastors or theology teachers (I live in a seminary town), they will concede many points. But from the pulpit or from the classroom, all the concessions are gone. I think they see themselves as parents who must safeguard their children from the existential fears of adulthood. Frustrating. Also heartbreaking. I feel quite isolated.
I remember experiencing that too. When they seem capable of nuance in private but not in public, you can know that they know they are doing wrong and have chosen to do it anyway.
I'm really sorry it's happening to you too, there are lots of people outside that environment who agree with you that that isn't right.
That's my FIL. Since my deconstruction, he's liked to have theological talks with me. In one of our discussions, I brought up how messed up the story of the fall is, with God definitely setting man up for failure. He told me "yeah, I don't buy it." Two weeks later, he starts a sermon series leading up to Jesus's birth, and of course he starts in Genesis 2:4. Any mention of it just being an allegory? Nope.
In seminary many learn about the sacred text like any scholar and then take courses in how to talk about these matters with nonacademics from the pulpit. It's like the rules of reading a bedtime story to your children: do not vary by even one word of expectation or your children will scream, holler, and cry.
This. No one wants to say "The Emperor has no clothes."
@@Rhewin
I see no problem with the story of the fall whatsoever. There is no indication in the story that humans were never supposed to know the knowledge of good and evil ever. Even the early church didn't see this in the text. It's basically the equivalent of having a car in the garage and telling your kids that they are prohibited from driving the car. One day they will be able to drive the car, but just not yet. This doesn't mean that the kids don't have the capability to steal the keys and go for a joyride.
Okay I have to admit I laughed at the "no one can see me" John Cena wave.
Lol. Saaaaaame. People at the Laundromat think I'm crazy.
Finally the Rock has come back to TH-cam!
I spit out my drink and I'm not even mad. lol
Thank u so much for this comment!! 😂😂😂😂
Yeah…but will you🫵 trolls be laughing 🤣🤣 this hard when you meet Jesus face to face? 🤣🤣 I don’t think so.
Please do a longer video on this. I would love for you to go through more contradictions and more ideas.
That was breathtakingly good! Dan has used the term “renegotiate” in several vids and I was never sure that I was completely understanding his usage. The last few minutes of this video put a lot of the contradictions within the Bible into context, particularly in terms of people’s interpretations (or their parsing of “priority” passages versus “downplayed or ignored” passages) being driven by their faith traditions, the doctrines of their particular sects, and their identity politics. Love the notion that humans use the Bible as the “proof text.” I must admit that I love to watch Dan’s videos for his research and scrupulously data-driven approach and recognition of human cognitive/belief tendencies, although I consider myself an atheist.
"Our traditions are the real authority - the Bible is just the proof text"
So good to hear him accepting the authority of the Holy See.
@@MarcillaSmith I think - if I understand you - that Dan’s comments imply no such acceptance of papal authority. I understood him to mean that all faiths “renegotiate” biblical statements - that is, they emphasize what they like and downplay what they don’t- to buttress that particular faith’s doctrines. Given the multitude of Christian sects, each with its own doctrinal tenants, I don’t think you could say that Dan’s concept implies acceptance of any one faith. Perhaps you were being sarcastic; not even all Roman Catholics accept the authority of the Holy See, as many conservative American Catholics and their bishops disagree strongly with Pope Francis.
@@cedarwaxwing3509 Disagreeing with the Pope is one of the oldest of the Apostolic traditions. Still, there is a gulf that separates disagreement from disobedience.
As for "renegotiating," I disagree that all faiths do so with the Bible. Hindus certainly don't. Muslims don't - they have the Qur'an to clarify. In fact, I'd say that the only people who necessarily _have_ to make these "renegotiations" are the sorts of Bible-Worshippers who elevate the authority of a book over and above the Word of God, Who is our lord Jesus, Who gave the Keys to the Kingdom to Pope Saint Peter.
Those of us who submit to this authority might be said to belong to the Church which "negotiated" what would and wouldn't be canonized in the first place. It could also be said that our scribes edited the scriptures for various reasons under different circumstances. But that's just the point: our Anointed Salvation - the Divine _Logos_ gave the head of the Church such authority that what He binds on earth is bound in heaven.
And yet, people will make an idol of the book, while accusing the Church which published it of being the "real" idolators. I mean, I get how people fall into it, myself not being a cradle Catholic, but once the fact are presented, IDK how people can persist in their schism.
@@cedarwaxwing3509I think they were referencing the tradition in the Catholic Church that Scripture should be read by the laity only with a guide.
John Cena is god confirmed. Thanks Dan for telling us the prophecy.
"i saw God face to face"... "yea, but that was not even his final form".
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
His power levels... it's over 9000!
I'm crying 😂
Do you ever wonder why Dan uses the plural pronoun they for God? It’s because you gotta catch them all!
I agree with this 100%. Ordained minister and theology student for 41 years. I couldn't say it better.
One of the best videos among many very good ones!
For me, one of the most fascinating things about the Bible, and especially the OT is how it shows the evolution of the Abrahamic religions.
Your videos have deepened my understanding of this “evolution” quite a lot, and I appreciate it. I do have a couple of questions I would like to ask you about the Bible that I hope you can shed more light on, or correct me on.
I love this “steel man” approach to discussing this concept! Great job Dan!
This is absolutely amazing. Keep them coming.
1:35 John Cena trade mark move!
The passages in Exodus describing how Moses cannot behold the fact of god reminds me very much of the myth of Jupiter and Semele.
Thank you for making this video. Between a certain commenter on here and a couple of cultists within my extended family circle, I know too many people who will ignore the plain faced reading of the text where it says the characters see God's face.
That last statement? Ouch.
Dan, you’ve done so much for people who appreciate what you say.
Thank you, thank you, thank you. A thousand times.
Apologists do not "Apologise" for the Bible, they "Excuse" it.
Apologism (as in religious apologism) is different (and has a distinct, though related root origin) from our typical understanding of the word "apologize".
@@Christian-Man No, you don't. You'll make great educated points that will never sink in for them, and they'll double down on their belief. Exactly the same as Christian apologists. When someone starts with the presumption that their holy book is the inspired word of God, it does not matter what you say unless they're open to critically examining it themselves.
@@Christian-Manoh wow you win every debate with a Muslim? Wow you must be something else huh, you really debunked Islam, what are we ever going to do?
@@Christian-Man and they think they won every debate with you.
@@Christian-Man and they don’t care.
Brilliant explanation, Dan. Thanks for keeping it factual.
I often hear that in those passages that say someone saw God, apologists will say it was the "glory" of God that they saw.
I have seen Evangelicals question Joseph Smith's First Vision because "no one has seen god." I don't believe Smith saw God, but it's interesting how they try to explain away passages in the Hebrew Bible in which men clearly see God. The hoops they have to jump through to make it work.
Do you wonder if it is possible to see God? I don't believe JS saw God either. Do you believe JS face showed up on Brigham Young's face? I don't believe it. However, I do know a face can show up on another person's face because I have seen it. That experience was a warning to me of which I did not listen. I believe it can happen to others if they are open to those experiences. Or is it due to other reasons?
Everyone should questions Smith's MULTIPLE first vision accounts. Even Dan will admit the data say that the BOM is a 19th century product and NOT of ancient origin. Data over dogma 👍.
Yeah. Alternatively, you can take the idea in John as the truth and presume those instances in the OT were just examples of deluded people taking for God beings that are not. The Marcionites did this. They thought the OT didn't have anything to do with the NT.
Thanks for doing what you do
Thanks 4 another Intersting presentation
When you learn all of these things how can a person continue to be a believer
Personal experience with God plus the tenants of Christ keep me accountable to my fellow man, myself, and God
Easy. By acknowledging that the Bible is not God.
Just like Dan said...we choose what we want, to suit our own *identity politics* and negotiate the rest, away. That's how.
Yeah like the two above comments you just have to acknowledge that Bible is no God or that it is univocal and that it instead presents many different contradicting views about the divine and other topics and choose the one that suits us
As a believer, I don't need or expect the Bible to be God breathed and perfect. First I need to decide if I'm created or popped into existence as some accident. Once I decided I was created I looked to the implications of that. What are my responsibilities? What's my purpose? How am I to use this life?
Next, I looked for what Ive encountered that not only provides the best answers to those questions but that I personally connect with (I expect to have a connection to what created me). Christianity has hands down provided that, and the Bible as a vehicle of a message for my life is totally perfect, even if not perfect from a legalistic reading of it. I do believe Jesus is historical and the New Testament captures his life as far as is needed to guide mine.
I always learn so much about the Bible from these videos, and I'm very familiar with the Bible. But these videos bring in context that i definitely don't have access to! 👍👍👍
Even if one believes in bible inerrancy, one must still deal with the contradictions. Ignoring them seems to be the common way they do this. But that still does not resolve the contradictions. Renegotiation is only viable for the pliable.
Awesome stuff.
It is all about the gymnastics.
Essentially contradictions dismissed via Arguments from Redefinition. But with such arguments, what can’t be reconciled?
Cool. I'm writing a book on this topic, and low and behold, Google read my book as I'm writing it and served up your video! 😇
1:35 that was a shot out to god Cena 😂
Love the Lobo with wings shirt!
As a mystic I would argue that holding the contradictions together as a single unit is a deep part of the mystery of God. It sounds absurd and impossible but it is in fact possible and still quite absurd.
We figuratively, and possibly physically, put our fingers in our ears and loudly say "BLAH, BLAH, BLAH," over and over again.
That's how.
Amazing video. Thanks for posting
I've been trying to put this into words so long. I used to do this all the time before I deconstructed, and I wasn't even consciously aware I was doing it. The reinterpretation just seemed so obviously true. The words on the page just didn't matter.
Ironically, it's those supposedly platonic Christians who actually had the least problem with those anthropomorphic passages. Why? It's all things to a little something called the trinity. From the very beginning, the church fathers understood those appearances of God in the old testament as Christ prior to his incarnation because the very same gospel of John that says no one has seen God also describes Jesus as the icon or image of the father.
I think the frightening thing for many when grappling with this is that whatever life-anchoring, life-orienting, life-governing "Truth" in this is whatever our community deems so. It doesn't literally exist. I'm not sure what satisfying alternative to offer people looking for eternal guidance and meaning, when we _deeply believe_ in our bones we need timeless divine truth to find meaning and to shape our lives.
You don't tell them anything. You leave them alone because unless you have incontrovertible prove they are wrong, you would be doing more harm than good.
I myself believe in God, but even if I didn't, I would follow many traditional moral values associated with traditional religions because I would argue that evolutionarily speaking, they have lead to functional human societies. When I say functional, I mean equipped for long-term survival. Look at what the radical movements like the sexual revolution have brought upon western civilization. While some good has come from contraception, it has also led to disturbingly low birth rates that are so unsustainable that the entire industrial luxurious form of life we have grown accustomed to is on the verge of collapse simply because we aren't fucking enough. it's telling that some of the most atheistic countries in the world are resorting to importing tens of thousands of people from largely traditional theistic cultures just to have enough manpower to support modern life as we know it. I mean I guess if someone isn't going to have kids, this won't matter. They will be dead and gone and leave others to deal with the consequences. But for future generations, being a CEO or boss babe will no longer be an option because they will be too busy just trying to find a basic blue-collar job to pay the bills.
So you have secular societies that are technologically more advanced, but also have high rates of depression, hedonism and nihilism and seem to be unable to do some thing as basic as sustaining a large enough population to maintain the lifestyle they pride themselves on. Meanwhile you have religious and traditional societies that on average might be less technologically advanced, but who do you think is better equipped to survive The collapse of the global economy? A fragile technologically dependent civilization, or some religious goat herder's in the mountains of Afghanistan or subsistence farmers in Africa?
Meaning and purpose is whatever it is that we want. If you are lost in morality, there's always this universal rule that has always existed: Never do to others what you don't want to happen to you.
Some, on the basis of texts speaking of Jesus’ being seen “coming in clouds with great power and glory” (Mr 13:26; Re 1:7), conclude that the use of clouds in connection with other divine manifestations suggests invisibility rather than visibility. So, too, ‘seeing’ can refer to figurative sight, perception with the mind and heart. (Isa 44:18; Jer 5:21; Eze 12:2, 3; Mt 13:13-16; Eph 1:17, 18) To deny this would be to deny that the opposite of sight, namely, blindness, could be used in a figurative or spiritual, rather than literal, sense. Yet Jesus clearly used both sight and blindness in such a figurative or spiritual sense. (Joh 9:39-41; Re 3:14-18; compare also 2Co 4:4; 2Pe 1:9.) Job, being spoken to by Jehovah “out of the windstorm” (likely accompanied by clouds), afterward said: “In hearsay I have heard about you, but now my own eye does see you.” (Job 38:1; 42:5) This, too, must have been by perception of mind and heart rather than the literal eye, in view of the clear Scriptural teaching that “no man has seen God at any time.”-Joh 1:18; 5:37; 6:46; 1Jo 4:12.
Can we get some sources for further exploration?
Thanks!
Really interesting stuff. What you described is what I’ve heard others refer to as theory crafting. It’s something that Christians, Muslims, Mormons, Jedi (amongst other groups) do in order to preserve the coherence of their sacred texts (or movies) by eliminating contradictions.
One good example is the presence of CRT screens in the 1970s and 80s Star Wars movies and LCD screens in the 00’s Star Wars prequels. If the prequels happened before the original Star Wars films chronologically, why are the screens better than the original films? Well, it’s obvious why this is the case, but it still needs to be explained away in order to keep the Star Wars mythology coherent.
You could say that the prequels had more advanced screens because after the outbreak of war, much of the new technology was destroyed which meant the two sides had to break out the old tech. That seems like an acceptable excuse and, just like that, the contradiction is resolved.
With Mormonism, you could say that the gold tablets that Joseph Smith supposedly carried around could not have been gold because they would have been way too heavy for one man to carry. It just isn’t reasonable to believe one man could do it. But what if the tablets were made of wood and they were just gold plated? That works, and it clears up the “plot hole.”
All of this is to say that this sort of theory crafting can be done for almost any topic. This is why pointing out a contradiction in the Bible is a fruitless way to argue with Christians because there is always some way to explain it away and retain belief in the Christian god.
Anyway, thanks for the video. It’s always good to hear thoughtful, knowledgeable people speak honestly about the Bible.
I once got Simon Bisley to draw ✍️ me a sketch of Lobo 😎
When a apologist speek they lie. Case in point.
The joke about lawyers and politicians can easily apply to apolohists: How can you tell when an apologist is lying? When their lips are moving. Or in the case of posts - when their keyboards are being tapped. 🤣
There's no lying involved here. First of all, lots of Christians affirm appearances of God in the Old Testament, unlike what the video suggests. It's actually a very common point in Christian interpretations of the OT. Secondly, interpreting the Bible in light of a theological presupposition that it comes from a single source is not lying or even irrational, it's just operating under different presuppositions.
Since the scripture has gone through so many changes, how can it be trusted to be absolute truth as so many claim?
Blind faith
Uh, mysterious ways?
Well, it can’t. It’s a very shoddy instrument for providing the certainty that many Christians crave and it’s why they often appear to be dumdums.
But the Bible is also a rich source for people who are trying to puzzle out their own faith, belief, and relationship with a deity and the universe.
I need to get a Lobo shirt.
If two different conceptualizations of God are expressed in two different parts of the Bible and each conceptualization depended on the context in which it was developed, that does not make the contradiction disappear. This proves that in all cases the conceptualizations of God depend on the cultural context.
Culture and understanding of reality varies as humanity develops.
The Christian religion attempts to argue that there is only one valid interpretation of spiritual truth.
Contradictions not only appear between different cultural contexts.
They are intrinsic to Christianity.
Bing chilling
The Bible survives because it is extremely malleable. It can be adapted to just about any interests.
Of course it's entirely possible that the difference in the perceptual difference is due to different beings actually being seen/known/felt.
@@MrMortal_RaI don’t think so. The most common apologetic response to the Genesis verse is the phrase “face-to-face” which may indicate that it wasn’t literal. Just like seeing “eye-to-eye” with someone doesn’t literally mean you’re staring at each others’ eyes.
Conceptualizing it as different entities may be more of a skeptical approach. Similar to how some people say the God of the Old Testament is different than the God of the New Testament.
Just to clarify, I don’t necessarily agree with either viewpoints that I just stated. I’m simply citing the most common apologist response, in my experience.
The closing is ... wow! Just a slam dunk!
There isn't a single doctrine in all of Christendom that isn't argued and disagreed. Trinity? Virgin Conception? Substitutiary Atonement? TULIP? Jesus being God?
Nope. They're all items of conflict. How could that be?
Everyone just takes the wide variety of positions put forward in the Bible as a way to prooftext what they feel morality and religion ought to be.
I think Dan has an episode on the I am section. I think he pretty much agrees with me, not that that means anything! More broadly, the Jesus in John is dramatically different from the synoptic gospels. It was written around 100, long after Jesus died. There had been plenty of time for the myths surrounding Jesus to grow
Do you think John was aware of Genesis 32:30, where Jacob said, "for I have seen God face to face"?
2:35 Maimonides nuts
I think of these "sights" of God as conceptual metafores tus no contradiction.
Possibly God was telling Moses, “Talk to the hand” as he walked away.
I like how you admit that you accept the passages that verify what you say and that you have to change the ones you don't. At least you are being honest with it instead of people like Ken Ham and William Lane Craig who just say that it is both ways. However, I do respect them in the dedication to biblical literalism. "The earth is flat and round" and when they say that the world is only 6k years old even though everything points to an older earth, but since the bible says "flat and young" that's how they believe it to be.
A reinterpreting of the bible is what Jews do all the time. That's why they say the Torah is a living text that evolves with time.
3:14 I don't negotiate with terrorists.
Dr. McClellan: You make a strong argument that perspectives / ideas / concepts change over time.
However, based on what I've read, and been told by Jewish Orthodox rabbis, Israelites living in the Kingdom of Israel, studied Torah in Hebrew - as they do today - rather than Greek, and that Christian apologists, or even atheists, love to argue against traditional Judaic concepts - especially regarding messiah - from the Pentateuch, and/or Septuagint - rather than the Hebrew of the Tanakh - because the former has a few subtle differences in translation that are somewhat beneficial to Christian apologists, e.g., Isaiah 7:14, but only if the overall context of the passage, and the totality of Torah is ignored.
Personally, I am NOT religious, and view all religions as humankind's attempt to answer classic questions such as, why are we here, why do the good die young, and will I see my family and friends after I die? And religion also serves a role as a governing force to maintain order in societies, or at the very least, is a cultural glue that helps to hold groups together, or create an identity, or provide some "moral" guidelines.
Woah! Woah! Woah! Hold the phone! You’ve spoken with Israelites living in the Kingdom of Israel? Did this involve traveling back in time to before 720 BCE or were you using spirit mediums to speak with the dead?
However you accomplished it, this is stunning news that you are in communication with people living between 930 and 720 BCE. Consider my mind blown.
Question on Exodus 33:11: The New Oxford Annotated Bible (5th edition) has a footnote for the verse stating "*Face to face,* an expression of intimacy available only to Moses rather than an indication that he literally sees God's face" What's your take on this assertion? It sounds like blatant apologetics to me, but the NOAB generally doesn't stoop to that sort of thing.
My understanding of ancient Hebrew from a perspective informed by rabbinical literature is that "face to face" means "in person" as opposed to "in a dream", per se.
Jacob, for instance, laid his head down on a stone and then "saw" a ladder or staircase up to heaven with angels on it. He says he was there in person, and then gave the place a name that invoked a name of God.
Moses saw some aspect of God on a mountain while his eyes were open so he saw the "hindmost part" (least "face"-like part) "face to face" = "in person".
I have the book josephus and in it Adam and Eve had more children than just Cain and Abel...plus much more information.
The book of Jubilees talks about Adam and Eve having more children. It's also gives more insight on Noah and the ark after the flood and a breakdown of the Moon cycles, and that later in our generations we wouldn't no longer fully understand the feast days or the seasons...when it talks about seasons its not in reference to spring, summer etc but it references the seasons as important holy days.
Jesus ascended into heaven and it also talks about the ascension of Isaiah in a book on Isaiah. The Enoch books talks about Mazzaroth and the gates of the sun and Moon cycles.
It's another book I can't remember but it helps understand their ages like Methuselah living to be 900 plus years old but when you break it's symbolic numerology down he was actually around 15 to 17yrs old when he fathered Lamech. And Lamech is a coded name. For example Jesus being the Son of God also coded to represent the Sun of God and Jesus says he is the truth the LIGHT and the way.
God bless everyone. I pray we all share knowledge and deeper understanding to God's word which purely sacred and holds powerful meanings in higher learning,light and understanding in Wisdom..
I'm confused. Most Jews (as far as I know) do not believe God has a physical body but rather is purely a spirit or incorporeal, and that most of the Old Testament descriptions for God is anthropomorphic, or merely imagery. A common example used to back this up is Deuteronomy 4:15.
Wow. The idea that our interpretation of the Bible is subordinated by our traditions is a terrible thought. It's why I'm no longer Christian, and why I refuse to ever go back.
Christians have literally always argued that God showed up in an ostensibly physical form in the Old Testament, and have identified those appearances with the pre-incarnate Jesus since at least Justin Martyr.
Do we really understand the nature of being?
God can manifest as anything.
"No one has seen God, yet the Son has made him known." Simple.
But God was seen. So the verse is false and on top of that the Ot says that no one can see God's face but Moses saw God's face .
@@JopJioHe saw the Son of God, he didn't see God the Father.
@@truthbebold4009 no one has seen God. It doesn't say father or son. So this are clear contradictions
Correct me if I'm wrong, or misunderstanding the quality of the "god" of Christianity. It is said that this "god" is omnipresent. So how could it ever be that someone would "see his face and die", or that Moses could "look upon the god's backside" if this entity is actually omnipresent?
Curious question, where do you say would be the time frame of the angel be inserted into the text from the original meaning? Or any books to read about it?
Hellenistic idealisms
Hellenized Judaism cranked up to 11
Ooh, ooh, I know, we can make God go away!?
"All the Bible is negotiable." Kinda puts a dent in the "God's word" armor, at least for me.
Dr McClellan says: "The conceptualization of 'God' changed between [time X] and [time Y] ..." and I hear: "They gave new powers to their super-powered superhero."
So God changed from the Old testament where he was all-powerful to a complete change in the new testament where he was all-powerful.
Nothing new was added. You're just hoping that this video is correct so you don't have to actually read.
@@president234 You are the one who needs to read, I fear. If you cannot spot some obvious differences between the "God" of the OT and the "God" of the NT, you are not looking.
@@Nai61a ok since I'm so ignorant educate me. What are the differences from the All-powerful God of the Old Testament vs the All-powerful God of the New Testament?
@@president234 You do not really need me to tell you this, but genocide seems to disappear in the NT, "God" gets himself a son to represent him and this son puts the emphasis on love, gentleness and forgiveness - if you listen to the Christians. Jealousy and wrath are not major themes. The "God" of the NT is invisible but was not so in the OT.
The more interesting fact is that the "God" of the Old Testament is not and could never be, the "God" of the New Testament. The Jews will tell you this. It was masterly sleight of hand by the early Christians to link the OT and NT together, but it is entirely unjustified and, frankly, insulting to Jews. Imagine if the Quran were published with the New Testament as its "foundational text".
How? You ignore it, or you apologize for it.
Theists approach the Bible the same way they approach everything else; start with the conclusion you want to believe and ignore or misrepresent everything that doesn't support that conclusion.
Agreed. From the theists I've seen in Dan's shorts and in his comment secction, begging the question/circular reasoning tends to be the main ingredient of their mental diarrhea. 😆
How to make contradictions go away? Written in later, changed, how can a bible be negotionable if it comes from God?
The Bible itself doesn’t claim that the Bible was written by God. That’s a belief without a biblical basis.
Many people saw God face to face when He was manifested in the flesh as Jesus.
Incorrect. They saw him by faith, not by their carnal eyes.
[2Co 4:18 KJV] While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal.
I assume the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham are also negotiable since Joe Smith made those up.
Interpreting the Bible with the Genesis 1 character and the Genesis 2 character as the exact same character generates near 70,000 contradictions.
Interpreting the Bible with the Genesis 1 character and the Genesis 2 character as polar opposite characters is non-contradictory.
(Contradictions are man-made errors)
The bible makes so much more sense, if you just read it as stories people were telling each other back then.
What is the evidence that this evolution in God’s conceptualization is an influx from greek philosophy, as you suggest? Once one already finds in D, which is considered post-exilic?
Lobo?
Spanish for wolf, not short for lobotomy.
The bible says whatever one wishes it to say.
I use socratic method to show the problems I see with the bible and christianity. Now socratic method is asking and ANSWERING questions but I find a lot of christians avoid my questions so I cant move on to the next step. Its very frustrating and makes christians look dishonest like politicians who avoid simple questions. So here are 2 sets of questions I mainly use.
People of all kinds please state if you are christian or muslim, atheists, agnostics or any combination of those and then if willing participate in the test. As well, looking for 5 good moral theist questions for atheists/agnostics.
#1 You see a child drowning in a shallow pool and notice a person just watching that is able to save the child with no risk to themselves but is not, is that persons non action moral?
#2 If you go to save the child, the man tells you to stop as he was told it was for the greater good, but he does not know what that is, do you continue to save the child?
#3 Is it an act of justice to punish innocent people for the crimes of others?
#4 If you were able to stop it and knew a person was about to grape a child would you stop it?
#5 Would you consider a parent who put their kids in a room with a poison fruit and told the kids not to eat it but then also put the best con artist in the room with the children knowing the con artist will get the kids to eat the fruit and the parent does nothing to stop it a good parent?
I have kept track of answers and non answers and who is responding. Atheists and agnostics are nearly 100% at answering these simple moral questions while christians are less then 18% and muslims are less then 7%.
#1 If you were brainwashed would you know it?
#2 If someone said they had a test for brainwashing, would you want to take it?
#3 If they then said, if you cannot answer these questions, that means your brainwashed, would you be giving it 100% effort to answer those questions?
All criminals are caught red handed of murder 100% guilty and show no remorse. The judges always apply the perfect amount of punishment. All things being equal and for arguments sake.
Now I will give an example. There are 4 judges and 10 guilty criminals. Judge #1 orders punishment for all 10 criminals and does not forgive without punishment a single one. Judge #2 forgives without punishment all 10 criminals. Judge #3 forgives without punishment 9 of them and punishes 1 of them. Judge #4 punishes 9 of them and forgives without punishment 1 of them.
#4 Which judge is the most/maximally just?
#5 Which judge is the most/maximally forgiving?
#6 Is judge #3 either most/maximally forgiving or most just?
#7 Is judge #4 most/maximally forgiving or most just?
#8 Is it possible for any judge to be both most/maximally forgiving and most/maximally just?
With the judge questions again, atheists and agnostics are nearly 100% while christians and muslims are less then 3%. The real problem is denial and not being able to admit you might be wrong. Please, show me how you make these contradictions go away. Objective morals do not change over time so you cant use that excuse on the moral questions.
You should probably read the book of mormon for answers to these questions
@@clearstonewindows >>You should probably read the book of mormon for answers to these questions""
You are in the book of mormon and I can find your answers there? You cant answer the question is it just to punish the innocent for the crimes of others? You could not see the implications of being brainwashed if you avoid answering the judge questions that are pretty much done by definition for you? Does it look honest when politicians avoid questions?
@@macmac1022 They're not my questions they're your questions.
Good luck!
@@clearstonewindows ROFLMAO. I know they are my questions, what are YOUR answers? OH YA, you dont answer just like a dishonest politician. Your religion has broken your brain, you cant even answer simple moral questions. How can I use the socratic method if you dont answer the questions?
T the first five questions my answer is no
but they miss the point of the Biblical passeges they reference. For example God put the forbiden fruit in the garden of Eden because God values free will even if people make stupid decisions with it but this was the only source of sin in Eden so people still could live without sin
The next set of questions my answers are yes
To the next set of questons
-the first
-the second
-mostly forgiving because he is inconsistent thus inpredictible and so unjust
-nether for the reasons above but he is not mercifull
-both. It is rather simple if they show true honest remorse fogive them or shorten there sentance if not, not
Forgivnes is important but guilt has to proceed it.
For the example in the video I like to think that these accounts of seemg God sre conceptual metafores.
Isn't God in the P source ( 6-5th century BC) also transcendent ? I think it is more evident that the Jews understood their God as beyond form on their own independently of the Greek tradition that came later. And the two powers in heaven controversy spans a lot of old testament verses that your hypothesis does not cover especially with fact that in the ancient middle east god's identify tent to be fluid.
Hello Dr. McClellan, I want to be a Biblical Unitarian. I think Jesus didn't undersant himself to be God therefore he is not God. But I think there are verses in the Bible that depict Jesus as God and I think there are verses that put words into Jesus' mouth as if he was claiming to be God . My question is would it be theologically consistent move for me to see these verses that depict Jesus as God and as if he was claming to be God as both theological and historical errors in the Bible and ignore those verses and hold the Unitarian view of God(denying the view that Jesus is God)?
Dan claims that the bible absolutely nowhere shows Jesus as God Almighty itself but always distinguishes God from Jesus in clear ways.
The verses that seem to show Jesus claiming to be god are just Jesus claiming a form of deity. (Actually it wasn’t Jesus doing the claiming. It was the author of the gospel.) There are many gradations of “deity” in ancient Jewish/christian thought. Angels, for example, are a form of deity.
@@normalyoutubeman He said in comment section idea of Jesus as God is not totally post NT belief and there is an overlap in some verses.
Question; "I think there are verses in the Bible that depict Jesus as God" is it a problem for you that critical scholars say that this doesn't really happen and that trinitarianism is nowhere in the Bible and that this understanding of various passages is a result of later developments/renegotiations of the text's meaning?
If all you care about is your own reading of the text, then "theological consistency" is literally just whatever you decide that it is. In which case there is no point in asking for other people's input.
If you are concerned with adhering to the text and getting as close to the various author's intent as possible, then this should be a non-factor for you as it is no longer relevant to your concerns as your initial reading is not grounded in anything which stems from the text itself.
Of course, all of this presupposes that Jesus really did say anything that it portrayed in the Bible. Since you're allowing for the fact that people can just claim a Jesus said whatever they want him to have said, at some point you're going to have to ask how it is that you can determine whether any given passage is a real quote. Or any passage at all for that matter.
@@rainbowkrampus I care about biblical authors' intentions as well. And i accepts gospels are unreliable historical documents but there are critetias that scholars use to determine authenticity of Jesus' sayings. I think we can know Jesus believed in works based salvation, and preached God's love is unconditional. Ans he believed in afterlife.
You say that we re-negotiate the bible Dan, but what if we are only concerned with what is actually real. The book says a thing, yeah but did that really happen? I feel that these stories where humans interact with divine beings are just stories. However there are those who take these as literal history. My grandparents on my fathers side were two such people.
How do you "negotiate" with them, with people who think that legends and myths are real and historical, in their entirety. So if it says the world was flooded. Then it was flooded, full stop. Never mind that such a thing can't happen. If it says all humans are descended from a man named Adam and a woman named Eve, that's it, FACT, no arguing, despite the fact that our modern understanding of biology and genetics says this doesn't work.
Psalm 34:11
Come, children, listen to me. I will teach you the fear of Yahweh.
Compare:
John 5
Names of God Bible
37 The Father who sent me testifies on my behalf. *You have never heard his voice, and you have never seen his form.*
with:
Numbers 12
Names of God Bible
4 Suddenly, Yahweh said to Moses, Aaron, and Miriam, “All three of you come to the tent of meeting.” So all three of them came. 5 Then Yahweh came down in the column of smoke and stood at the entrance to the tent. He called to Aaron and Miriam, and they both came forward.
6 He said, “Listen to my words: When there are prophets of Yahweh among you, I make myself known to them in visions or speak to them in dreams. 7 But this is not the way I treat my servant Moses. He is the most faithful person in my household. *8 I speak with him face to face, plainly and not in riddles. He even sees the form of Yahweh.* Why weren’t you afraid to criticize my servant Moses?”
9 Yahweh was angry with them, so he left.
I have some lovely oceanfront property in Nebraska for sale. You used to see it but now not. It's totally fine. Will that be cashier's check or money order then??
Basically, (in scientific terms) it's all a load of tosh
I think an important counter point would be existence of the triniry outside of how he deems it a Greek philosophical understanding of the nature of God. For those who have wrestled, seen, and spoken to God face to face there is the question of which Person. Christ is equally God as the Father, but has a quantifiable form. For God has no beginning or end, Christ can appear as a human. For those that saw God, Christ the Son could have been who they witnessed, full of all diety and glory as the Father, but operable in a physical form.
If you think Christ visited people in the flesh before his earthly ministry you need to read the book of ether
@@clearstonewindows I'm not saying he was in the flesh, but he had form. He is the only person of the Trinity to have form at any point, for both the Father and the Spirit are purely spiritual
@@yannibelousov3204 you should still read it for yourself
@@yannibelousov3204and the idea of a purely spiritual form comes from Platonic philosophy. Before that influence entered, there wasn’t the idea that a messiah was God.
The other option is when a person saw God in the OT, they were seeing the preincarnate Jesus.
This solution highlights a problem with trinity.
If Jesus is fully God, then no one should see him either!
But Arius really seems to have won, bc most Christians view Jesus as "almost but not quite" God. Even tho Christian churches recite trinitarian creeds.
Many Christians still do not aprove of paintings or sculptures of God the Father, but are ok with pictures of Jesus.
Despite the creeds, Christians talk like God the Father is the more powerful more divine "really" God part of the trinity. As if the Father is 51% of God, He has a majority vote. Jesus is 25% and the Spirit is 24%.
Hey, dont get mad at me, just saying what i observe. I know most Christians would disagree with statement on face value. But im talking about how they talk and act about it, not what the creeds say.
Jacob may have thought he didnt favor Joseph above the others, but his words and actions said otherwise.
This can't be the case, since Jesus was only revealed in the time of Peter:
1 peter 1 20 He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake
a kind of hierarchy is built into the creed: the son is begotten of the father, and the spirit proceeds from the father and (maybe also) the son. however, (unless you followed arius) they are of one substance so they are equally divine.
john's gospel worked through your issue and resolved it by saying that the invisible god took human form so that we could see him. jesus is god's self-revelation.
@@JopJio It's a standard thing that many theologians say
Wasn't my idea
And it doesn't contradict the book of peter at all
@@MusicalRaichu I've read that book many many times
And no it doesn't resolve the issue
Or at least it only partially does
The only way to really resolve this issue is to understand that the writers of the old testament believed god was a corporeal superman and the writers of the new testament believed god was an invisible monotheistic god
@@langreeves6419 if Jesus was only revealed in Peters time, he coldnt have been revealed before.
In other words: the entire bible is written by people, not God, and thus is no more believable or credible than any other book of fiction.
Are you claiming that people cannot write non-fiction? That histories and biographies have no basis in reality and are made up?
So God plays a game of "Now you see me, now you don't, er, can't". Lol
It's amazing to see how God and his power have evolved throughout the time that subsequent writers of the books add their own ideas of him. But I realize that happens with all fan fiction; originally, Superman could only "leap tall buildings in a single bound". His ability to fly was written in later. BTW, you'd think that God, if he really was omnipotent, would be able to reveal himself to human beings. Weird that people believe that God can do everything, when the OT clearly shows that there were limitations to his power.
And to the religious apologists who follow Dan's channels, no need to post a reply. Really not interested in your tortured "logic" attempting to rationalize the contradictions. And besides, I've most likely muted you, and wouldn't know you replied. 🤣
Well there are many ways to interpret scripture which absolve these contradictions.
I like (for example) to think that these are conseptual metafores. Also it is interesting how much biblical literalism is around people who try to Interpret the Bible but aren't christian
@@solyomkovacs7762 Or, a person can follow a scholar such as Dan, to learn - and accept - what the authors actually meant.
The Vulgate is late, so this makes no sense.
Are you really positing a late addition based off of the *Vulgate* dropping a word? Are the attestations of the Masorah, Samaritan, and Septuagint nothing to you? Were they all caught by this mysterious redactor hundreds of years after they diverged, despite their disparate reading communities?
KJV Exodus 24:10 And they saw the God of Israel: and there was under his feet as it were a paved work of a sapphire stone, and as it were the body of heaven in his clearness.
The KJV obviously didnt change the verse as you are claiming so that proves your whole greek tradition and twisting scriptures to be false
And all of those verses mentioned God was never fully revealing himself regardless of being an Angel or God himself. So either way the scriptures you quoted, God was never fully revealed.
It seems more like youre wanting the Bible to be renegotiated rather than actually paying attention to what the scriptures actually are saying.
Dude, your subtitles gave me epilepsy seizure
If no one has seen god then jesus must not be god.
God: "You can't see my face, but you could look at my hot ass."
🤣🤣🤣
@paradoxofepicurious, how very epicurean/apikoros of you. ;)
Or “Talk to the hand.”
@@MarcosElMalo2 Or, "Talk to my hot ass". 😂
Let's jyst take whatever fringe theories suit us best and posit them as fact with an air of authority.
re-negociate = apologetics
Apologetics is the only reason religions still exist
@dabidiam
Apologetics is not the only reason religions still exist. Faith and a claimed relationship with God is.
Each is free to believe what he wants, but I get upset that each time a contradiction is highlighted, some apologist comes along to find a way to explain the contradiction.
@@dabidiam maybe better contradictions need to be found? Also, why does it upset you?
The bible has always been subordinate to the church, for the important reason that there would be no bible without it. We canonized it, we collected it, we edited it, we preserved it. As such the authority to interpret it rests with the tradition of the church. I know that makes many squirm, and possibly Dan as well, but it doesn't even make sense to speak of scripture if there is no church making it scripture.
Easy. Stop reading fiction.
Dan, you often talk about there not being Univocality in the Bible, but you rarely talk about the relationships between these various books of scripture. Obviously, the Hebrews and the Christians both viewed these writings as connected to their faith in a way that sets these writings apart from others so I’m not really sure what you’re trying to tell us other than the very specific idea that these were written for a particular time and place only. But if that’s true then why do these believers collect these writings together and use them for study and edification?
Is your desire to disprove the inaccuracy of people who believe things about the Bible that are incorrect based on factual, historical, and academic standards? If so, then why stop at the Bible? Will you also do your work on the Quran and the Bhagavad Gita, The Holy Book of Hindus, or the Talmud? And once again... I am sincerely asking you the question as a truth seeker. What do you say is the way to eternal salvation?
He mentions in his introduction video that he's a practicing Mormon.
@@Halophage so he is a mormon
Dan doesn’t say there is a way to eternal salvation. What he does say is that each of us must work it out for ourselves. In the context of Christians who follow the Bible, he says they need to negotiate that for themselves.
The problem arises when abrogate that negotiation to others with ulterior motives.