If the impetus of the Deuteronomists is due to foreign influence, what is the source of that influence? Is the argument it is Assyrian? Is there historical or archeological evidence for a scribal or legal/political Assyrian version of an Ashur-ism, contra a weakened Assyrian priest class, that would serve as a mirror for the centralized YHWH cult that developed?
Why do people keep saying Abbas is father. Ab or Abba with alif is father. There is no s. However, Abbas, with ein (which would be impossible to know in the Greek), is an extremely common name in the Semitic world. I have known many people with the name Abbas. Bar Abbas would actually be a real name. Son of the father would not be a real name, makes no sense in the real world, and no one would in reality be called son of the father. Abbas, by the way means lion. So there in front of everyone is the lamb and the lion. The people could choose. The people were looking for the lion. They chose the lion. They wanted the lion. They rejected the Lamb. By rejecting the Lamb, prophecy was fulfilled. By choosing the lion, war and violence, they lost their country. Most people have been choosing the lion ever since. Of course, the true Lion will yet be revealed. The true Lion is not a violent overthrower, but One who sets things aright and reigns justly. He is not coming to destroy (that is someone else's job title), but there will be those will not be able to abide His presence. -with much love-
@mormonismwiththemurph are these two guys as cool off screen as they are on screen? I would love to talk with them but the only thing I bring to the table is I'm pretty fucking dumb lmao so not much to talk about 😅
When I read the scriptures it is clear that the Creator and Old Testament YHWH (Jehovah) is NOT Jesus, but the Father of Jesus. Jesus speaks and is spoken of by divine investiture as his Father, the OT Jehovah; and the resurrected Jesus is also a Jehovah, and speaks as Jehovah. And this confuses people into thinking Jesus was the creation and OT Jehovah. But this cannot overrule the multitude of scriptures that clearly verify that Jesus was the Son of the OT Jehovah. The very term “Son of God” is equal to “Son of Jehovah” because a Father of Jehovah is never clearly spoken of in any scripture, but only in the endowment.
Not expecting to have a lot to say on this one. If the scholarship discussed is good, we'll probably just have some agreement and move on. That said, I do expect to hear some argumentum ad Margaret, and that will probably get a bit obnoxious. This is just a reminder at the start that Dr. Barker's ideas are rather fringe, and she's often accused of doing the same things that apologists get accused of doing. That said, when she represents consensus scholarship, she is generally quite good at faithfully representing the consensus viewpoint. 7:30 For this argument to cohere, you would have to demonstrate that the ideas that appear in the temple endowment, which are also found in the endowment, are not just a product of Joseph's evolving ideas. This with the BoM version representing early, fledgling forms of ideas that would later be expanded upon. I don't know how you would demonstrate that, but that's also not my epistemic burden to bear. Otherwise, you're just saying stuff without any meaningful backing to substantiate the claim. 19:15 Scholarly consensus would not agree that the Deuteronomists were monotheistic. Though the exact point where monotheism really emerges isn't 100% clear, the evidence points to the post-Exilic, Second Temple period at the earliest. The absolute sovereignty of YHWH over Israel is more of a concern of the Deuteronomistic literature, which is more into monolatry or henotheism than monotheism. 26:10 Laman and Lemuel have nothing to say about the building of an altar outside of Jerusalem. Their issue is with Lehi's visionary claims. 28:00 There is still some dispute about when Leviticus was written, but many scholars argue that it was written in the post-Exilic period. If that's the case, is it not perfectly explicable that the reason why the Day of Atonement (and the Feast of Trumpets) does not appear in Deuteronomy is because those festivals had not been invented yet? 56:00 Alma also means, and is most often translated as, "young maiden". Will you wrestle with that in this argument, or are you just going to throw the ideas you like out for folks to see and hide the others? And please don't justify the masculine use of Alma on the basis of a single letter from the Hellenistic period, centuries after the Lehite exodus. 56:40 Wait. Is every tree in the BoM now a symbol of "the virgin", or just the ones that we like? How are you making the distinctions? How are you demonstrating that this is what the author intended? So much of apologetics these days seems to be saying that the text claims something that isn't actually in the text at all, building a narrative off of that, and then refusing to understand why the critic sees it as nonsensical BS. 59:15 The text explicitly states that the reason why Lehi was driven out was because he was calling the people out for their wickedness. He is calling out the wickedness of a people that the Deuteronomistic history agrees were wicked. So... yeah... Are these guys going to accurately represent what the BoM says at all, or just represent what they want the BoM to say? 1:02:00 These guys absolutely fell apart here. Pretty basic criticism from the Murph, and then this laughably bad word salad. Anyway, let's address the silliness. If someone presents a document as a historical record of true events, and that record contains anachronisms, then it cannot be any older than the latest most recent anachronism. The example of if there's a document that claims to be about Abraham Lincoln, and it describes his iPhone 8, we know that document cannot be any older than the creation of the iPhone. Since Lincoln died before the creation of the iPhone, we know that document is historically unreliable. Now apply that to the Book of Mormon. It quotes Deutero-Isaiah. Deutero-Isaiah was written during and after the Exile. Therefore, those sections could not have been written before the Exile. The problem is that the Lehites left the Holy Land before the Exile. This means that the BoM, which contains that anachronistic material, is not historically reliable. The reverse situation, no anachronisms in the text, means that the document may be historically reliable. It is not disqualified from the status of historical reliability. 1:03:30 The only people for whom it isn't an obvious fraud are those who assert its veracity. So, this point really shouldn't carry much epistemic weight. If it were true, we would expect to find Hebrew DNA in the New World. We don't. If it were true, we would expect to find evidence of pre-Columbian steel production. We don't. If it were true, we would expect it to accurately mention flora and fauna unique to the New World that do not appear in the Old World. It doesn't. 1:05:00 Joseph didn't need to "guess" any of that. All he needs is some people who are super committed to making it work no matter what to come along and twist and strain and wrench out just the smallest crumb of plausibility to keep those who want to believe able to do it. And I get it. I've been there. But to say that Joseph got it to align with scholars over a hundred years later while the book includes a story of a migration of people from the tower of Babel is not a fully intellectually honest approach to this. I think it's neat that Lehi is at least a plausible figure. But all this is just overstating the case. 1:06:30 No, it does not take more faith to reject the claim that a resurrected white Hebrew American appeared to Joseph Smith and led him to golden codex of plates with engraved reformed Egyptian characters which he translated into King James style English using a rock in his hat. It absolutely does not take more faith to reject that claim. This argument is bad when Frank Turek makes it. And it's bad here. Just a reminder that this all started when Murph presented just some light criticism, not even close to the stuff I've argued here. 1:08:00 And all that was fringe scholarship from Dr. Barker. This doesn't mean she's wrong, but it does mean that what she's claiming should be understood with a heavy grain of salt. 1:10:45 Typology is notorious for parallelomania. 1:24:00 Or the author of John used Levitical imagery to make his christological argument of Jesus' role as the lamb of God. Which is generally in line with the scholarly consensus on what is going on in John. 1:30:00 This is some corkboard, thumbtacks, and red string level stuff right here. Well, sadly, I ended up commenting a lot more than I expected. I hoped that it would be mostly good scholarship with a bit of silliness, but those scales were not as balanced as they should have been.
Laman and lemual did not only murmur because Lehi was visionary. While the BoM doesn't explicitly mention building an alter a specific reason for their murmering, the fact that Lehi speaks to them in this specific way because they are murmuring, and this happens after building the alter, establishes a circumstantial link, whether or not you choose to see it. 1 Nephi 2:11-13 further clarifies that Laman and Lemuel were in agreement with the Jews in Jerusalem who sought to kill Lehi. Hence, there is a lot more to it than his merely being "visionary"--unless being one of the'visionaries' is what Dave and Mike are saying, which is a lot more than simply having visions. Actually, Mike and Dave pretty much do link every tree that is specifically referenced in the Book of Mormon to the Divine Feminine, so your mockery there doesn't pan out without you showing a tree referenced that couldn't work. Also, your example of an anachronism is oversimplified and not representative of any of the perceived flaws in the Book of Mormon. These are, instead, things that scholars have not yet found evidence of existing in that same period. Their plausibility is only questioned because the Book of Mormon says they existed but other archeological evidence doesn't support then-- yet. For example, one of the favorite anachronisms used to be the arrival of a people to the America's before the bearing straights land bridge existed, because everyone knew no one could have arrived sooner. Except there is increasing evidence now that peoples have migrated to the Americas for thousands of years without ever knowing that they weren't supposed to be able. This kind of logic is also undoubtedly one of the arguments to place Leviticus as post-exilic-- because some scholars don't believe those rites and feasts had been developed yet. It is the same reason many Apocryphal works were left out of the Bible--because scholars argued that prophets didn't speak of Christian themes before Christ, as evidenced by the works that are currently in the Old Testament. This logic is somewhat circular because it will never accept anything different than what it currently accepts. Also, you haven't followed the most recent DNA studies because the Native Americans of the northeast do share a haplogroup with the Semitic peoples of the middle east.
@mormonismwiththemurph I've had issues with TH-cam dropping comments if I comment too much too fast on a video. Not sure what that limit is, but, happy as I am to help with the engagement, I don't like it when my comments vanish into the aether haha.
Well done, Murph. Can't ever get enough of Butler and Day!
Lets gooo!!! Cant get enough of Dave Butler and Mile Day. Very excited for this one 🙌😊
Hope you enjoy it
If the impetus of the Deuteronomists is due to foreign influence, what is the source of that influence? Is the argument it is Assyrian? Is there historical or archeological evidence for a scribal or legal/political Assyrian version of an Ashur-ism, contra a weakened Assyrian priest class, that would serve as a mirror for the centralized YHWH cult that developed?
Why do people keep saying Abbas is father. Ab or Abba with alif is father. There is no s. However, Abbas, with ein (which would be impossible to know in the Greek), is an extremely common name in the Semitic world. I have known many people with the name Abbas. Bar Abbas would actually be a real name. Son of the father would not be a real name, makes no sense in the real world, and no one would in reality be called son of the father. Abbas, by the way means lion. So there in front of everyone is the lamb and the lion. The people could choose. The people were looking for the lion. They chose the lion. They wanted the lion. They rejected the Lamb. By rejecting the Lamb, prophecy was fulfilled. By choosing the lion, war and violence, they lost their country. Most people have been choosing the lion ever since. Of course, the true Lion will yet be revealed. The true Lion is not a violent overthrower, but One who sets things aright and reigns justly. He is not coming to destroy (that is someone else's job title), but there will be those will not be able to abide His presence.
-with much love-
1:35:13 If you put all the lawyers “down” half the apostles would be 😵
MIKE MUHFUGGIN DAY AND D.JOHN BUTLER!!!!
Oh yes
@mormonismwiththemurph
are these two guys as cool off screen as they are on screen? I would love to talk with them but the only thing I bring to the table is I'm pretty fucking dumb lmao so not much to talk about 😅
Talking donkeys. Give us more talking donkeys. And if there's time, a story about milk strippings.
The approach of the come follow me scribes. 😅
Murph will be a future Christian ❤
Mike is a bit obsessed with Mormons ❤
Nice troll
And you will be a future latter day saint
@@mormonismwiththemurph nope, I’ll always be a NeverEverMo that follows the true Jesus. Would you like to know Him? ❤️
@@tytrib love Mormons enough to tell them they are following the wrong Jesus. Only the real Jesus saves. Would you like to know Him? ❤️
When I read the scriptures it is clear that the Creator and Old Testament YHWH (Jehovah) is NOT Jesus, but the Father of Jesus. Jesus speaks and is spoken of by divine investiture as his Father, the OT Jehovah; and the resurrected Jesus is also a Jehovah, and speaks as Jehovah. And this confuses people into thinking Jesus was the creation and OT Jehovah. But this cannot overrule the multitude of scriptures that clearly verify that Jesus was the Son of the OT Jehovah. The very term “Son of God” is equal to “Son of Jehovah” because a Father of Jehovah is never clearly spoken of in any scripture, but only in the endowment.
Not expecting to have a lot to say on this one. If the scholarship discussed is good, we'll probably just have some agreement and move on. That said, I do expect to hear some argumentum ad Margaret, and that will probably get a bit obnoxious. This is just a reminder at the start that Dr. Barker's ideas are rather fringe, and she's often accused of doing the same things that apologists get accused of doing. That said, when she represents consensus scholarship, she is generally quite good at faithfully representing the consensus viewpoint.
7:30 For this argument to cohere, you would have to demonstrate that the ideas that appear in the temple endowment, which are also found in the endowment, are not just a product of Joseph's evolving ideas. This with the BoM version representing early, fledgling forms of ideas that would later be expanded upon. I don't know how you would demonstrate that, but that's also not my epistemic burden to bear. Otherwise, you're just saying stuff without any meaningful backing to substantiate the claim.
19:15 Scholarly consensus would not agree that the Deuteronomists were monotheistic. Though the exact point where monotheism really emerges isn't 100% clear, the evidence points to the post-Exilic, Second Temple period at the earliest. The absolute sovereignty of YHWH over Israel is more of a concern of the Deuteronomistic literature, which is more into monolatry or henotheism than monotheism.
26:10 Laman and Lemuel have nothing to say about the building of an altar outside of Jerusalem. Their issue is with Lehi's visionary claims.
28:00 There is still some dispute about when Leviticus was written, but many scholars argue that it was written in the post-Exilic period. If that's the case, is it not perfectly explicable that the reason why the Day of Atonement (and the Feast of Trumpets) does not appear in Deuteronomy is because those festivals had not been invented yet?
56:00 Alma also means, and is most often translated as, "young maiden". Will you wrestle with that in this argument, or are you just going to throw the ideas you like out for folks to see and hide the others? And please don't justify the masculine use of Alma on the basis of a single letter from the Hellenistic period, centuries after the Lehite exodus.
56:40 Wait. Is every tree in the BoM now a symbol of "the virgin", or just the ones that we like? How are you making the distinctions? How are you demonstrating that this is what the author intended?
So much of apologetics these days seems to be saying that the text claims something that isn't actually in the text at all, building a narrative off of that, and then refusing to understand why the critic sees it as nonsensical BS.
59:15 The text explicitly states that the reason why Lehi was driven out was because he was calling the people out for their wickedness. He is calling out the wickedness of a people that the Deuteronomistic history agrees were wicked. So... yeah... Are these guys going to accurately represent what the BoM says at all, or just represent what they want the BoM to say?
1:02:00 These guys absolutely fell apart here. Pretty basic criticism from the Murph, and then this laughably bad word salad. Anyway, let's address the silliness. If someone presents a document as a historical record of true events, and that record contains anachronisms, then it cannot be any older than the latest most recent anachronism. The example of if there's a document that claims to be about Abraham Lincoln, and it describes his iPhone 8, we know that document cannot be any older than the creation of the iPhone. Since Lincoln died before the creation of the iPhone, we know that document is historically unreliable. Now apply that to the Book of Mormon. It quotes Deutero-Isaiah. Deutero-Isaiah was written during and after the Exile. Therefore, those sections could not have been written before the Exile. The problem is that the Lehites left the Holy Land before the Exile. This means that the BoM, which contains that anachronistic material, is not historically reliable. The reverse situation, no anachronisms in the text, means that the document may be historically reliable. It is not disqualified from the status of historical reliability.
1:03:30 The only people for whom it isn't an obvious fraud are those who assert its veracity. So, this point really shouldn't carry much epistemic weight. If it were true, we would expect to find Hebrew DNA in the New World. We don't. If it were true, we would expect to find evidence of pre-Columbian steel production. We don't. If it were true, we would expect it to accurately mention flora and fauna unique to the New World that do not appear in the Old World. It doesn't.
1:05:00 Joseph didn't need to "guess" any of that. All he needs is some people who are super committed to making it work no matter what to come along and twist and strain and wrench out just the smallest crumb of plausibility to keep those who want to believe able to do it. And I get it. I've been there. But to say that Joseph got it to align with scholars over a hundred years later while the book includes a story of a migration of people from the tower of Babel is not a fully intellectually honest approach to this. I think it's neat that Lehi is at least a plausible figure. But all this is just overstating the case.
1:06:30 No, it does not take more faith to reject the claim that a resurrected white Hebrew American appeared to Joseph Smith and led him to golden codex of plates with engraved reformed Egyptian characters which he translated into King James style English using a rock in his hat. It absolutely does not take more faith to reject that claim. This argument is bad when Frank Turek makes it. And it's bad here. Just a reminder that this all started when Murph presented just some light criticism, not even close to the stuff I've argued here.
1:08:00 And all that was fringe scholarship from Dr. Barker. This doesn't mean she's wrong, but it does mean that what she's claiming should be understood with a heavy grain of salt.
1:10:45 Typology is notorious for parallelomania.
1:24:00 Or the author of John used Levitical imagery to make his christological argument of Jesus' role as the lamb of God. Which is generally in line with the scholarly consensus on what is going on in John.
1:30:00 This is some corkboard, thumbtacks, and red string level stuff right here.
Well, sadly, I ended up commenting a lot more than I expected. I hoped that it would be mostly good scholarship with a bit of silliness, but those scales were not as balanced as they should have been.
Lol
Laman and lemual did not only murmur because Lehi was visionary. While the BoM doesn't explicitly mention building an alter a specific reason for their murmering, the fact that Lehi speaks to them in this specific way because they are murmuring, and this happens after building the alter, establishes a circumstantial link, whether or not you choose to see it. 1 Nephi 2:11-13 further clarifies that Laman and Lemuel were in agreement with the Jews in Jerusalem who sought to kill Lehi. Hence, there is a lot more to it than his merely being "visionary"--unless being one of the'visionaries' is what Dave and Mike are saying, which is a lot more than simply having visions.
Actually, Mike and Dave pretty much do link every tree that is specifically referenced in the Book of Mormon to the Divine Feminine, so your mockery there doesn't pan out without you showing a tree referenced that couldn't work.
Also, your example of an anachronism is oversimplified and not representative of any of the perceived flaws in the Book of Mormon. These are, instead, things that scholars have not yet found evidence of existing in that same period. Their plausibility is only questioned because the Book of Mormon says they existed but other archeological evidence doesn't support then-- yet.
For example, one of the favorite anachronisms used to be the arrival of a people to the America's before the bearing straights land bridge existed, because everyone knew no one could have arrived sooner. Except there is increasing evidence now that peoples have migrated to the Americas for thousands of years without ever knowing that they weren't supposed to be able.
This kind of logic is also undoubtedly one of the arguments to place Leviticus as post-exilic-- because some scholars don't believe those rites and feasts had been developed yet. It is the same reason many Apocryphal works were left out of the Bible--because scholars argued that prophets didn't speak of Christian themes before Christ, as evidenced by the works that are currently in the Old Testament. This logic is somewhat circular because it will never accept anything different than what it currently accepts.
Also, you haven't followed the most recent DNA studies because the Native Americans of the northeast do share a haplogroup with the Semitic peoples of the middle east.
You should do individual comments on each time stamp to get more comments/interactions haha
@mormonismwiththemurph I've had issues with TH-cam dropping comments if I comment too much too fast on a video. Not sure what that limit is, but, happy as I am to help with the engagement, I don't like it when my comments vanish into the aether haha.
@perryekimae ah they probably sense trolling. I'm for it to all be in 1 comment