Sometimes. Far more often it's people who bought the box, paid a lot for the box, and really, really need the box to be a good investment to justify this.
Chocolates used to come in boxes with pictures of kittens and flowers on the lid, but inside there were horrible strawberry and orange creams. Sometimes the picture lies.
Oh I love the metaphors! I'm going to use these. "A fence from Jurassic park and a panel from the Millennium Falcon." Leftover pieces from other toy sets that we somehow try to force fit as to originally having belonged together. Indeed, it is The Frankenstein Bible. Perfect description.
There's already a Jedi vs Zombies novel, and it's actually part of the non Disney canon. So Jurrasic park Star Wars is definitely in the realm of possibilities!
2:00 oh no, you did NOT just go there! Dumbledore's head on Gandalf's body is like crossing streams in Ghostbusters. One does not simply combine wizards!
This type of post hoc reasoning always reminds me of this: "I'm the smartest person in the world!" "No you aren't" "Of course I am. And you know it's true cause the smartest person in the world is telling you it is"
Last night i had a dream about meeting a group of Mormons. I hesitantly asked them about Dan, thinking they might not like his non dogmatic views. But they all liked him. Then my alarm call went off and i woke up. I'm still pissed because i wanted a nice bible debate with believers capable of rational discussion.
An excellent analogy which I may well steal 😁 Sadly, the majority of theists will probably just refuse to accept this explanation and will, as always, take refuge in the dogma and traditions they find so comforting. Either blithely unaware of the facts or willingly ignoring them.
Is there an ethical way to make meaning with the Bible through the lens of my religious tradition? While still acknowledging that a scholarly approach is better at getting at what the author intended or what actually happened. For example, I acknowledge that the flight to Egypt is likely a fiction to help with prophecy fulfillment. However, it's deeply meaningful for me to think of the Messiah as a refugee. And I think it helps embolden my faith community to support refugees today!
Dan's whole point is that people take from the Bible what they need (or feel they need) to meet their own requirements, so it isn't something being ethical or not. The ethics come from what you do with it. Supporting refugees, being kind to others, opposing cruelty, I'd consider it entirely ethical to use the Bible as inspiration. Using the Bible to justify discrimination and cruelty, that's unethical but that's because the acts themselves are unethical. For a secular example, people have used Darwin to have a greater understanding of humanity's place in the world. Other people have used it to justify racism and genocide.
The flight to Egypt (winter) begins at the summer solstice (I must decrease) and ends at the winter solstice. The flight out of Egypt begins at the winter solstice (he will increase) and ends at the summer solstice.
I'm not sure the metaphor really holds, since the whole point of a big bin of legos like that is to make your own cool stuff using parts from all the different sources. Which is sort of what Christians do, but then they claim the thing they built was the original intent of all the pieces they built it from.
I mostly agree, but I think if there's an overall message, it's about the failed promise of the Davidic kingdom. As you said, though, any single attempt is going have some pieces left over too, but I think that is the primary picture, especially given the influence of the Babylonian Exile on Yahwism as it survives today.
I love the fun comments :-) I think the real point is that the "incomplete sets" give us some insight still, they have value. You can see where someone grafted on a doric column where the corner of the beach house has been lost, that sort of thing
It is even worse. Christians know a modern, sanitized version of what the Bible says. On the rare occasions they open the Bible and read it they tend to twist the words on the page to match the version of the Bible in their head. They pretend the Bible has one consistent message, and that message matches their 21st-century beliefs. I find that I enjoy reading the Bible as an atheist more than I did as a Christian. I am now free to understand what each author is trying to say. I can watch ideas and theology evolve over time. I can understand the real historical context. I don´t have to remember a thousand apologetics that try to explain why various verses are not quite as weird as they seem to be. There are a few Christians that can read the Bible like an atheist. They are rare, and they often make other Christians uncomfortable. Dr. McClellan is one of those rare Christians.
At the time the bible was assembled it was common knowledge the Earth was the unmoving center of the universe. Only a few centuries ago it was a death sentence to contradict this idea.
I love the Lego example. I completely disagree with the notion that the goal is to build the millennium falcon, the point is to put the astronaut's head on the firefighter's body and see if it is useful to you. The problem is that it being useful to you means you shouldn't like it because it points out that you suck, and most humans put together a Marry Poppins story. Of course there is a unifying story, do you think there is a snake in the beginning and the end on accident? A bunch of men took a bunch of pieces of literature and curated them into a story they thought the world needed to hear. None of this was on accident, deity involvement or not.
Dan shows that even what God is has changed dramatically from the start to the end of the bible. The vengeful storm god from the beginning isn't the platonic all knowing God from the end.
@@jeffmacdonald9863 Funny, I thought the central character is the same one who claims to have created the universe and then commits genocide, slavery, evil, etc.
It seems to me there IS one overarching theme, especially for the Old Testament: it's "our" tribe against everyone else. The last thing we need these days is more us against them.
Grew up Jehovah's Witness and we believed Adam, Abraham, Elijah, Moses, David, Isaiah all knew Christ and the method of salvation and the first century Christians also all believed the same things; Paul just made adjustments like modern JW leaders do. They knew that there would be some Christians going to heaven and most left on an earthly kingdom. Revelation determined the number of those anointed to go to heaven is 144000. Then almost immediately after Revelation and the gospel and epistles of John were written the church fell into a great apostasy where the earthly hope for most Christians went away, the immortal soul and the Trinity found favor as dogma and it took 1800 years until a group of guys in Pittsburgh restored true Bible teaching. I used to believe that, the dogma that the Bible had one consistent, harmonious message throughout 1500 years of authorship meaning that it had to be inspired by God. Today such a dogma seems absolutely ridiculous and i get having faith.. i have an acquaintance who spends his online time debunking flat earth, often religious flat earthers, and he uses established science to do so. The large percentage of his audience are atheists but he himself is a Christian. When confronted with a religious flat earther he will just remark "yeah whoever wrote that in the Bible was wrong." You can practice a faith but disagree with tenets and dogmas and i respect that.
A toy box full of Lego blocks is a terrible metaphor. First, a toy box full of Legos is fun, and second, when someone puts a bible where it doesn't belong we get book burnings and Crusades. When someone puts a Lego where it doesn't belong I get a sore foot for an hour and my kids learn new words they can't say in public.
Putting the Bible where it doesnt belong has not always throughout the centuries led to book burnings and crusades. Where are the book burnings now and the crusades now? Legos are not always fun and not all put them in the wrong place. I can also injure someone with Legos. Either way, its not the Bible nor Legos, its people. And I follow Dan and critical scholarship.
Dr. McClellan, point well taken. Would you agree though that when looking at the Hebrew scriptures, the Tanakh, that the overall theme and plan is for the redemption of Israel? YHWH chose the Israelites to be his special people. He gave them the Torah with blessings for keeping the Torah, and curses if they didn't. The Israelites failed to keep the Torah and they were punished. However, YHWH told them if after they were punished, if they repented, He would gather them from the 4 corners of the earth and re-establish them in the Promised Land with a Davidic descendant ruling over them on the throne of David. At that time the whole world will be filled with the knowledge of YHWH, and Jerusalem would be the center of the world for everlasting time.
You mean reading the texts in the same way they have been traditionally read for over 2000 years? The way they were almost certainly intended to be? Why would we do that when we have people whose theology was invented in the 19th century arrogating to themselves the authority to dictate how faith groups are and are not allowed to use their own texts?
Jacob and Esau were twins. Not identical though, fraternal. Esau was red and had coarse hair. One should be able to extrapolate from there that Jacob was a woman.... If the picture is a tree it would have roots unseen, a massive trunk, foliage, and most likely fruit.
MOREOVER: context. An infant simply doesn't have the strength to support the new born's head; much less support it's entire bodyweight with it's hand. The manner of their birth directly implies they were conjoined (hand and foot). Further more implying the requirement for them to be separated. Big _ problem here. I would assume the hand be removed before the foot; for best chances of survival. The use of the stretching of the hand is used all through scripture. Everywhere. Here it is by misrepresentation we get a large glimpse of the family feuding that transpires to this day.
Jacob's actual name was Jupiter (actually IUpiter) the double-sexed god. His act of pouring oil on the Hermes stone would only have been done by a woman desiring to become pregnant. The writers went out of their way to show that Jacob was actually Jupiter. Their placement of Nahor (snorter) aka horse in Sagittarius should not be missed. Sagittarius, is a Fire/Jupiter/Sun sign. Abram and Haran make up the Trinity of Jupiter, Jupiter, and Jupiter.
While we are presenting the body: let us look at the bruising or discolorations. Both the stretching of the hand and the bruising are within seven verses of each other in genesis 3 (15,22) that's fairly "contextual". We have almost an identical account I believe at the end of Kings2. Regarding an overlain child, which would most certainly show discoloration. The end of the Davidic line.
Biblical univocality, inerrancy, infallibility, and literalism are held by both Protestant and non-Protestant fundies. Those are the doctrines that get 'defeated' by looking at the Bible objectively. It doesn't touch liberal and progressive theology (held by both Protestant and non-Protestant Christians), because they don't hold to those doctrines.
And the theology of Jesus or the apostles. They believed Moses wrote the torsh and that their canon was God's word and preserved and written by prophets
Mixing legos and Bible passages, both produce Frankenstein images. So many ways they both can be built and interpreted. The ambiguity is what many religious people want.
Keeping with the metaphor theme, seems like folks who predetermine meaning from and assumed overall picture are just shooting arrows and painting targets around where they land
According to Jesus and Paul they all wrote about Jesus 😂 Luke 24:44 And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, *which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me* 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins *according to the Scriptures,* / that He was buried, that He was raised on the third day *according to the Scriptures* Luke 24:27 ► *And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself*
@@Cr-pj8bz I think this misses both the point that “the scriptures” are things that are written down. Modern English for “according to the scriptures” is “like it says in books”, which is not a very tight restriction, and the fact that the wording very strongly implies that many things in the scriptures _didn't_ concern him. Just saying.
What I find fascinating is that they included the Acts of Paul, but not the Acts of John. Why exclude the text about the person who actually traveled with Jesus in favor of the one who never met him?
@@stephenspackman5573Jesus referred to Moses, David and the prophets, the canon he knew and scholars agree Jesus is not mentioned in any of those books and that these books were not written by Moses, David etc and that they are not God's word.
I highly recommend everyone to read Your Life Your Game by Keezano. I’ve read it, and it truly changed my life. It beautifully shows how connecting with God and your inner self can lead to spiritual growth and financial success. A must-read. God bless all🙏💟💕
The Catholic Church squares this circle - Catholics never claim that the Bible is sufficient on its own. It needs the Church, and the Church's magisterium. It belongs to the Church. We don't propose Sola Scriptura, so we don't have this problem.
In my family growing up it was our tradition to not look at the picture on the box when doing a jigsaw puzzle. We still managed to finish the puzzle. Metaphor fail.
That wasn't the metaphor. The metaphor was a big box of mismatched LEGO sets, because there is no single univocal message in the Bible, as the puzzle metaphor implies. That's why the puzzle metaphor is wrong
@@toddbarton1049 The way the puzzle metaphor would work is to say the pieces all have different solid colors and any piece can fit with any other to make a picture of any size showing pretty much anything you want.
Sure, this all makes sense, except that if you didn't know Jesus wanted the border closed, you might read past it in the texts. So the big picture is obviously the way to go.
There are some Christians that I am aware of that strive to understand the natural world and Bible to the most accurate extent possible based on the available evidence, so you could argue they put data over dogma.
Progressive Judaism and Quakers don't have dogma. Neither do CofC, formerly RLDS. Wicca doesn't have dogma. Not a lot, but non dogmatic religions do exist.
Yes and no. We need to do BOTH. First, understand the pieces with their individual messages as well as the strings of pieces with their messages. Second, understand the overall picture and its multiple themes including its changing perceptions of deity in light of their fulfilment in the self-revelation of God in Jesus. "Then beginning with Moses and all the prophets, [Jesus] interpreted to them the things about himself in all the scriptures." I appreciate you've seen the errors in modern fundy Christianity, but then you've gone and thrown the baby out with the bathwater.
"Second, understand the overall picture and its multiple themes including its changing perceptions of deity in light of their fulfilment in the self-revelation of God in Jesus." The problem of course is that there is no unified picture on the box. If there were and it was clear and easy to get to (and even if there is such a thing clearly no one right now has any idea what it is), then we would not have any debates about Christian doctrine and thus many MANY different denominations each claiming that their picture on the box is the one true complete and CORRECT picture on the box while convincing no one else of the claim since they practically cannot show how and why theirs is the one true picture. Heck don't even speak about Christian denominations, INDIVIDUAL CHRISTIANS all have their own subjective "picture on the box" that take from one or more of the doctrines, their own and others included, plus with differences here and there. I've seen "Christians" who call them selves "Christians" but don't believe that their god is all powerful, or that the trinity or Jesus is even a thing or is important. So what you're attempting to do is technically impossible without that one true big picture. Whatever picture you come up with would be your own subjective opinion of what the TRUE picture is (if there even is one) and there would be no way for you to actually demonstrate how that picture of yours is in fact the true one apart from appealing to faith and emotion to get people to "believe that it is the one true one". And that is Christianity and indeed religion in a nutshell. "I appreciate you've seen the errors in modern fundy Christianity, but then you've gone and thrown the baby out with the bathwater." The problem of course is you cannot show how the fundamentalists of today have the incorrect picture. We can in fact say that fundamentalists are wrong or bad with regards to other things, let's say societal cohesion or equality or indeed even straight up sense. But with regards to their interpretation of the Bible, unless you already have the true big picture and can demonstrate beyond any reasonable doubt that it is in fact the true big picture, how can you then say that the fundies' picture is the incorrect one? It would then be a matter of you measuring up your subjective picture that you believe is the true one to THEIR subjective picture which THY think is the true one and what would result from that is you calling them bad for not adhering to THEIR picture and them doing the same to you for not adhering to THEIR picture. In fact, strangely enough, the picture that fundamentalists have may in fact be closer to the original picture of Christianity than any other Christian's picture and that's because fundamentalists believe that their god is perfect and that anything that he says and does goes. Hence all that slavery, genocide and whatever all the things that he did and commanded? Good simply and only because he did it, and how DARE anyone question that he could even not be good huh? Do you want the inquisition to burn your ass at the stake? If you were to look at the OT you'll find that such is the main overarching message, one that is never contradicted by the NT, is that the Christian god does whatever he wants because he is the Christian god and whatever the Christian god does or commands is good and should never be seen as otherwise. To NOT do as this god commands, no matter what this god commands, is by definition by this view, bad. You see this clearly in the stories of Abraham and Job. And you see it more when people technically don't like what their god seemingly has in store for them or has done to them but are willing to accept it simply because it's "god's will" and who are they to even thin about going against it? But as for those who DO go against that will and who grumble and complain that what god is doing to them is something the can't accept? They get the fire and brimstone, or in Job's case, because of plot armor, he simply gets told to STFU. And that is the mindset that has been maintained throughout history till today. Even now Christians will never be willing to admit that their god could be wrong or that their god was mistaken unless they are also willing to let go of their faith. And yet this is what the fundamentalists adhere to most closely and are most honest about it.
Even if you were to accept the notion that you can't make sense of the bible without looking at "the picture on the box," you'd still have to explain why an omniscient, omnipotent, and all good god would deliver his "word" to us in the form of a puzzle that, despite thousands of years of effort, still has no agreed upon solution. My hypothesis would be that, if god exists, then he's either a incompetent hack, or a malign trickster, or, somehow, both at once, and gave us a puzzle that could not be solved either because that was the best he could do, or because he hates us.
Perhaps you hate yourselves. Is there any reason for example why millions of people should starve to death? Do multibillionaires really need more money? What are they willing to do to get more? And you wanna find fault elsewhere. Sorry, but mankind has proven to be a tyrant and a fool.
Your hypothesis is because you have the exact same presuppositions and dogmas about what "the Bible" is supposed to be and how we got it as fundies do.
@@byrondickens : Uh . . . whut? I've made no "suppositions" at all. I've simply suggested that (a) if you believe there is a god (I don't) and (b) you believe that the bible contains a factual record of his exploits (I don't), or even merely a record of the beliefs its authors had about his exploits (which seems true), then the exploits themselves are prima facie evidence that the god of the bible is either stupid or malicious or both. But perhaps you think that the bible is evidence for some other characterizations of the god whose story it purports to narrate. If so, do tell.
@@Jamienewman0 The hell you haven't. "... a ... god would deliver his 'word' to us...." is a massive presupposition right there and, like I said, exactly the same one that fundies have. The only difference is that you are playing on the other team but you are still claiming that is what "the Bible" is SUPPOSED to be. Most Christians believe that the biblical authors were AUTHORS and not stenographers.
So you're telling me that Christ didn't come into being to fulfill the covenants of Old Testament, and that the Jews aren't God's Chosen to the land of "Israel"? Oh dear, the sky is falling.
The biblical "land of Israel" is a collection of stars aka constellations. As summer (hello Ham/Haran) Israel consists of Leo (noble/royal head), Virgo (palm frond/branch), Reed (Libra), and the lying tail aka Scorpio. Isaiah 9 (in one day) describes the position of the signs at the spring equinox. This is where the Mesiah (son of IUpiter) makes his appearance as the spring sun.
Yes, and, they also recognize that the Bible is not univocal as it is a collection of texts. However, they openly state their lenses and faith commitment up front. It is possible to engage the Bible critically and be a Christian (I mean, Dr. McClellan is a practicing Mormon). I’m in full time congregational ministry and don’t think much of the Bible is historical (at least in the Modern, Western sense of historical) nor is it meant to be.
@@Thoughtful_Theologian Well, you admit that Jesus of the Nt was wrong. He falsely believed Moses wrote the books as well as Isaiah and other prophets and that the Scripture he knew was God's word and preserved. But we know that's not true. The biblical Exodus also didnt happen. That's why I rejected Xtianity altogether.
@@Cr-pj8bz there are inaccuracies in the New Testament texts that depict Jesus. Whether Jesus believed Moses wrote the first 5 books of the OT is irrelevant. When I preach or teach from the pastoral epistles, I refer to the writer as Paul not because I think Paul wrote them (he more than likely did not), but because authorship has been attributed to him and is widely accepted by those in my faith tradition. Jesus is never attributed as saying anything about scripture as “God’s word and preserved” (whatever that means). The “Old Testament” was not a set collection of texts in the first century. And, Jesus isn’t attributed as referring to them as such.
@Thoughtful_Theologian John 10:35 NIV - If he called them 'gods,' to whom If he called them 'gods,' to whom the *word of God* came-and *Scripture cannot be set aside*
Everyone has their own interpretation of what the Bible says. People can decide what to accept, not accept, etc. I don't think people have to accept the Bible as having ONE unifying meaning. People should be free to interpret it as they like.
First thing you need to do is read the Gospels in their original language Hebrew. Now When you translate Hebrew into Greek you lose a lot also you cannot take that translation and translate in back into the original manuscript having lost so much, unless you have manuscripts the manuscripts in their original Hebrew. Now they have been found and show the errors we believed and were taught. As Scriptures say we will repent of the lies we inherited from our fathers. How can you accurately interpret scripture when while being translated it was already given a false interpretation? For example where ever it says as" being interpreted "as meaning or" it is written" that shows interpretation from the original Hebrew and it is written shows from where? the Hebrew Scriptures..
Dan can and does read the original Hebrew. That's literally what he got his degree in. And the Gospels were written in koine Greek, not Hebrew. This is just embarrassing for you 😂
OK, the elephant in the room. The vast majority of the texts included in the Bible were not written by/for Graeco-Roman pagans. Trying to adapt the texts to fit someone else's cultural narrative creates dissonance.
How do you break from this idea Christians and apologists convince you that you need to treat Christianity as innocent until proven guilty? I want to know it's wrong in whatever form can be presented otherwise I risk it being correct.
If what you say here is true, then it cannot be a message from a God unless that God wants us confused and battling each other over interpretation. If that is the case, screw that God. If it isnt a message from a God then the book is useless except as a reminder of what stupid things people will believe. Just BS that man made up and men still fight over, an overall detriment to mankind that should be forgotten.
TRY READING ANY BOOK IN THE SAME METHOD AS CLERGY DO IN CHURCH. "BOOK, CHAPTER & VERSE, THEN ANOTHER BOOK, CHAPTER & VERSE, AD NAUSEUM. HISTORY BOOK IN SAME METHOD: CIVIL WAR, DEPRESSION, THE NORTHWEST PASSAGE, DEATH OF KENNEDY, SPACE! YOU CANNOT LEARN MUCH IN THIS MANNER.
I still don't agree with you on this. Although I've not heard it put this way before, "the image on the Box." But let me give you a counter example. If I was to talk about the overall message and theme of Norton's American literature anthology. And I told you it seemed to affirm rugged individualism, capitalism, an entrepreneurial spirit, a rebellious nature, and a sense of inalienable rights. How is this statement not correct? And how is that not an overall arching theme of the selection of writings in the anthology even if one or two works in the collection have counter narratives, yet still it is an overarching theme and narrative that emerges from collecting these different authors and differing works together.
@@rainbowkrampus Just because OP believes in said message (they haven’t asserted it as fact that every reader should adhere to) doesn’t mean they haven’t been paying attention.
@ whatever result an actual critical scholar has from objective research is the result i am looking for. Challenging dogmas and beliefs and ideas merely backed by authority figures is what i am looking for. Why would a critical scholar not do that?
He's a Bible scholar. There's this crazy idea in academia that you don't speak about things you know nothing about. It would be awesome if apologists would do the same.
Unfortunately you yourself haven't realized the unified narrative. You need to understand nature and how living creatures work. Without this background, you will never realize what the mythologies are talking about. You never talk about nature, all you talk about is what everyone is talking about in their own interpretation. The Bible is not to be interpreted, it is to be recognized. But you are so deep in the mainstream narrative that you can't see the truth of the mythology. You never read the Bible, I promise you that.
@toddbarton1049 If you think "the beginning" means of existence, then you have no idea what you are reading about. It's the beginning of life, not existence. But you can't see that obvious truth because your are so bent on the modern day interpretation, but like I said, there is no interpretation, only understanding. Dan doesn't understand obviously.
@@chumpchangechamp3643 I mean, have you seen any of his other videos? He talks a lot about how the Bible has no inherent meaning, the only meaning is what every single individual reader does to negotiate with the text. You seem to think he sees it like mainstream evangelical Christianity does. I assure you he does not. And you just come off as pretentious, like you are one of the few with the secret "real" meaning. It's just cringey.
Funny how the people saying we need to go by the picture on the box are the ones who made the box and are selling the box...
Sometimes. Far more often it's people who bought the box, paid a lot for the box, and really, really need the box to be a good investment to justify this.
Damn, son! That is, like, the BEST, concise analysis of The Bible I have ever heard!
Frankenstein's monster of pieces actual describes the Bible pretty well
Chocolates used to come in boxes with pictures of kittens and flowers on the lid, but inside there were horrible strawberry and orange creams. Sometimes the picture lies.
Exactly! Where are my tasty kittens and flowers that the box promised??? :)
Ugh I hate decorative flowers in food. Just give me the kitten and a good barbecue sauce and I'm happy
🤣🤣🤣
I once bought a used set of R2D2, blindly trusting that “yeah of course it’s all there” . Wow was that a learning experience…
Oh I love the metaphors! I'm going to use these. "A fence from Jurassic park and a panel from the Millennium Falcon." Leftover pieces from other toy sets that we somehow try to force fit as to originally having belonged together. Indeed, it is The Frankenstein Bible. Perfect description.
Pretty sure it's a cosmic law that there's one Barbie shoe in every tub of Legos
Now I want to hear the story where the Millennial Falcon lands at Jurassic Park 🤔
There's already a Jedi vs Zombies novel, and it's actually part of the non Disney canon. So Jurrasic park Star Wars is definitely in the realm of possibilities!
It's called "Star Fox Adventures" on the GameCube.
Or maybe Dino Riders.
Star Wars Red Harvest was the Jedi vs Zombies book I was talking about.
Look, everyone knows that Captain Picard counseled young Skywalker that “Life finds a way”. Then Luke took the red pill and avenged his dog.
@@bensalemi7783 🤪 🤣🤣
Using “Lego bricks” instead of “Legos” is wonderfully technically correct, which we all know is the best kind of correct.
WWE puzzle, Epic Dan !!!! Thanks for sharing, excellent work as always
Thanks Dan. Loved the metaphors.
Thanks Dan! very educational and pedagogic! useful indeed!
Love your metaphore
Be careful not to step on the Bible with bare feet in the middle of the night on your way to the bathroom.
2:00 oh no, you did NOT just go there! Dumbledore's head on Gandalf's body is like crossing streams in Ghostbusters. One does not simply combine wizards!
I just realized how genius that was
Echoing @bertilow, “Love your metaphors” and adding you (Dan) explain it so well.
This type of post hoc reasoning always reminds me of this:
"I'm the smartest person in the world!"
"No you aren't"
"Of course I am. And you know it's true cause the smartest person in the world is telling you it is"
Every sect gets their Bible in a box. The picture on the box is hand-drawn in crayon by their pastor.
This is by far the best and simplest explanation so far!
Last night i had a dream about meeting a group of Mormons. I hesitantly asked them about Dan, thinking they might not like his non dogmatic views. But they all liked him.
Then my alarm call went off and i woke up.
I'm still pissed because i wanted a nice bible debate with believers capable of rational discussion.
@celsus7979 Funny that. I really like Dan's views. Maybe you just haven't met the right people.
Great metaphor!
❤❤❤❤❤❤thanks Dan!!
An excellent analogy which I may well steal 😁
Sadly, the majority of theists will probably just refuse to accept this explanation and will, as always, take refuge in the dogma and traditions they find so comforting. Either blithely unaware of the facts or willingly ignoring them.
Most pastors are wolves in sheep clothing.
@@harveywabbit9541 Or shepherds who excel at fleecing their flock.
This really gave me a lot of insight. Great vid!
Is there an ethical way to make meaning with the Bible through the lens of my religious tradition? While still acknowledging that a scholarly approach is better at getting at what the author intended or what actually happened. For example, I acknowledge that the flight to Egypt is likely a fiction to help with prophecy fulfillment. However, it's deeply meaningful for me to think of the Messiah as a refugee. And I think it helps embolden my faith community to support refugees today!
Dan's whole point is that people take from the Bible what they need (or feel they need) to meet their own requirements, so it isn't something being ethical or not. The ethics come from what you do with it. Supporting refugees, being kind to others, opposing cruelty, I'd consider it entirely ethical to use the Bible as inspiration. Using the Bible to justify discrimination and cruelty, that's unethical but that's because the acts themselves are unethical.
For a secular example, people have used Darwin to have a greater understanding of humanity's place in the world. Other people have used it to justify racism and genocide.
The flight to Egypt (winter) begins at the summer solstice (I must decrease) and ends at the winter solstice. The flight out of Egypt begins at the winter solstice (he will increase) and ends at the summer solstice.
This is an absolutely amazing way to put it.
As a clergy wannabe in 2 of the 40,000+ I do identify with this take.
Chaplains and Tech-Priests advancing the Imperium of Man in the grim darkness of the far future, where there is only war.
Great analogy! That box of mixed Legos did come down to us with a picture on it, it just had little to do with what was actually in the box.
I'm not sure the metaphor really holds, since the whole point of a big bin of legos like that is to make your own cool stuff using parts from all the different sources.
Which is sort of what Christians do, but then they claim the thing they built was the original intent of all the pieces they built it from.
I mostly agree, but I think if there's an overall message, it's about the failed promise of the Davidic kingdom. As you said, though, any single attempt is going have some pieces left over too, but I think that is the primary picture, especially given the influence of the Babylonian Exile on Yahwism as it survives today.
I love the fun comments :-)
I think the real point is that the "incomplete sets" give us some insight still, they have value. You can see where someone grafted on a doric column where the corner of the beach house has been lost, that sort of thing
It is even worse. Christians know a modern, sanitized version of what the Bible says. On the rare occasions they open the Bible and read it they tend to twist the words on the page to match the version of the Bible in their head. They pretend the Bible has one consistent message, and that message matches their 21st-century beliefs.
I find that I enjoy reading the Bible as an atheist more than I did as a Christian. I am now free to understand what each author is trying to say. I can watch ideas and theology evolve over time. I can understand the real historical context. I don´t have to remember a thousand apologetics that try to explain why various verses are not quite as weird as they seem to be.
There are a few Christians that can read the Bible like an atheist. They are rare, and they often make other Christians uncomfortable. Dr. McClellan is one of those rare Christians.
At the time the bible was assembled it was common knowledge the Earth was the unmoving center of the universe. Only a few centuries ago it was a death sentence to contradict this idea.
Brilliant!
I love the Lego example. I completely disagree with the notion that the goal is to build the millennium falcon, the point is to put the astronaut's head on the firefighter's body and see if it is useful to you. The problem is that it being useful to you means you shouldn't like it because it points out that you suck, and most humans put together a Marry Poppins story.
Of course there is a unifying story, do you think there is a snake in the beginning and the end on accident? A bunch of men took a bunch of pieces of literature and curated them into a story they thought the world needed to hear. None of this was on accident, deity involvement or not.
I always thought the overall picture on the box was that the central character isn't very nice.
Dan shows that even what God is has changed dramatically from the start to the end of the bible.
The vengeful storm god from the beginning isn't the platonic all knowing God from the end.
Humanity?
We are the central character, and yeah, we're not very nice.
@@celsus7979 Yeah, there isn't even a "central character" in that sense, since the character of that figure has changed drastically.
@langreeves6419 So you've decided to deliberately misunderstand my comment?
@@jeffmacdonald9863 Funny, I thought the central character is the same one who claims to have created the universe and then commits genocide, slavery, evil, etc.
Brilliant
It seems to me there IS one overarching theme, especially for the Old Testament: it's "our" tribe against everyone else. The last thing we need these days is more us against them.
Grew up Jehovah's Witness and we believed Adam, Abraham, Elijah, Moses, David, Isaiah all knew Christ and the method of salvation and the first century Christians also all believed the same things; Paul just made adjustments like modern JW leaders do. They knew that there would be some Christians going to heaven and most left on an earthly kingdom. Revelation determined the number of those anointed to go to heaven is 144000. Then almost immediately after Revelation and the gospel and epistles of John were written the church fell into a great apostasy where the earthly hope for most Christians went away, the immortal soul and the Trinity found favor as dogma and it took 1800 years until a group of guys in Pittsburgh restored true Bible teaching. I used to believe that, the dogma that the Bible had one consistent, harmonious message throughout 1500 years of authorship meaning that it had to be inspired by God. Today such a dogma seems absolutely ridiculous and i get having faith.. i have an acquaintance who spends his online time debunking flat earth, often religious flat earthers, and he uses established science to do so. The large percentage of his audience are atheists but he himself is a Christian. When confronted with a religious flat earther he will just remark "yeah whoever wrote that in the Bible was wrong." You can practice a faith but disagree with tenets and dogmas and i respect that.
The 144000 is actually 144 aka one turn of the mazaroth of 12 signs.
Nazareth is an alternate spelling of mazaroth..
A toy box full of Lego blocks is a terrible metaphor. First, a toy box full of Legos is fun, and second, when someone puts a bible where it doesn't belong we get book burnings and Crusades. When someone puts a Lego where it doesn't belong I get a sore foot for an hour and my kids learn new words they can't say in public.
Lego is definitely more fun until you step on one in bare feet.
Putting the Bible where it doesnt belong has not always throughout the centuries led to book burnings and crusades. Where are the book burnings now and the crusades now? Legos are not always fun and not all put them in the wrong place. I can also injure someone with Legos. Either way, its not the Bible nor Legos, its people. And I follow Dan and critical scholarship.
Kids can learn new words like that from the Bible, too. 😮
On my package of ramen, the words “serving suggestion” appear in the corner of the picture of noodles with various garnishes.
Dr. McClellan, point well taken. Would you agree though that when looking at the Hebrew scriptures, the Tanakh, that the overall theme and plan is for the redemption of Israel? YHWH chose the Israelites to be his special people. He gave them the Torah with blessings for keeping the Torah, and curses if they didn't. The Israelites failed to keep the Torah and they were punished. However, YHWH told them if after they were punished, if they repented, He would gather them from the 4 corners of the earth and re-establish them in the Promised Land with a Davidic descendant ruling over them on the throne of David. At that time the whole world will be filled with the knowledge of YHWH, and Jerusalem would be the center of the world for everlasting time.
It appears they have not repented, or haven’t you seen the news?
@@joefilter2923
It appears you haven't read what is written.
This is the time of the end.
The Promised Land is found at Golgotha aka place of the skull.
Amazing
Hmm what if we didn't take them literally but looked at them like symbolic allegory? 🤔
You mean reading the texts in the same way they have been traditionally read for over 2000 years? The way they were almost certainly intended to be?
Why would we do that when we have people whose theology was invented in the 19th century arrogating to themselves the authority to dictate how faith groups are and are not allowed to use their own texts?
@byrondickens yeah I suppose they spent so much time and energy on an "education" we should respect that
What's in the Box?
Noah.
Jacob and Esau were twins. Not identical though, fraternal. Esau was red and had coarse hair. One should be able to extrapolate from there that Jacob was a woman.... If the picture is a tree it would have roots unseen, a massive trunk, foliage, and most likely fruit.
MOREOVER: context. An infant simply doesn't have the strength to support the new born's head; much less support it's entire bodyweight with it's hand. The manner of their birth directly implies they were conjoined (hand and foot). Further more implying the requirement for them to be separated. Big _ problem here. I would assume the hand be removed before the foot; for best chances of survival. The use of the stretching of the hand is used all through scripture. Everywhere. Here it is by misrepresentation we get a large glimpse of the family feuding that transpires to this day.
Jacob's actual name was Jupiter (actually IUpiter) the double-sexed god. His act of pouring oil on the Hermes stone would only have been done by a woman desiring to become pregnant. The writers went out of their way to show that Jacob was actually Jupiter. Their placement of Nahor (snorter) aka horse in Sagittarius should not be missed. Sagittarius, is a Fire/Jupiter/Sun sign. Abram and Haran make up the Trinity of Jupiter, Jupiter, and Jupiter.
While we are presenting the body: let us look at the bruising or discolorations. Both the stretching of the hand and the bruising are within seven verses of each other in genesis 3 (15,22) that's fairly "contextual". We have almost an identical account I believe at the end of Kings2. Regarding an overlain child, which would most certainly show discoloration. The end of the Davidic line.
I used to obsess and waste a lot of time on the impossible goal of keeping my kids’ Lego sets together and complete. Then I gave up.
Can you do a video on Hezekiah tunnel?
"Why does this jigsaw puzzle have so many extra pieces? And how come some pieces fit with so many other pieces?"
LEGO are more fun anyway.
Thank you i am trying calvinism too then in my partial picture
Fine, ill listen to Schism again.
Doesn't that defeat whole protestant theology?
Is that a problem?
@@digitaljanusNot for any rational person, it shouldn't be.
As opposed to theologies that gave themselves the authority to ignore the writings and make things up?
Biblical univocality, inerrancy, infallibility, and literalism are held by both Protestant and non-Protestant fundies. Those are the doctrines that get 'defeated' by looking at the Bible objectively. It doesn't touch liberal and progressive theology (held by both Protestant and non-Protestant Christians), because they don't hold to those doctrines.
And the theology of Jesus or the apostles. They believed Moses wrote the torsh and that their canon was God's word and preserved and written by prophets
Mixing legos and Bible passages, both produce Frankenstein images. So many ways they both can be built and interpreted. The ambiguity is what many religious people want.
2:00 Dumbledore's head on Gandalf's body isn't quite what I'd call a "Frankenstein's Monster".
Jesus' central message was never 'I do what I want', and yet that's exactly what the entirity of Christianity has produced as its primary theme.
Keeping with the metaphor theme, seems like folks who predetermine meaning from and assumed overall picture are just shooting arrows and painting targets around where they land
This would explain why reading scripture feels like walking on Lego bricks in my bare feet.
I think this is where you get the "40 authors, from 1500 years, all saying the same thing" type of sayings often heard from these religious peoples.
There isn't even one Jesus in the Nt.😂
According to Jesus and Paul they all wrote about Jesus 😂
Luke 24:44
And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, *which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me*
1 Corinthians 15:3-4
For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins *according to the Scriptures,* / that He was buried, that He was raised on the third day *according to the Scriptures*
Luke 24:27 ►
*And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself*
@@Cr-pj8bz I think this misses both the point that “the scriptures” are things that are written down. Modern English for “according to the scriptures” is “like it says in books”, which is not a very tight restriction, and the fact that the wording very strongly implies that many things in the scriptures _didn't_ concern him. Just saying.
What I find fascinating is that they included the Acts of Paul, but not the Acts of John.
Why exclude the text about the person who actually traveled with Jesus in favor of the one who never met him?
@@stephenspackman5573Jesus referred to Moses, David and the prophets, the canon he knew and scholars agree Jesus is not mentioned in any of those books and that these books were not written by Moses, David etc and that they are not God's word.
I highly recommend everyone to read Your Life Your Game by Keezano. I’ve read it, and it truly changed my life. It beautifully shows how connecting with God and your inner self can lead to spiritual growth and financial success. A must-read. God bless all🙏💟💕
l totally agree
l just bought it, tnx
TF is this? Thirty minute old comment with fifty+ likes. I call bot spam.
@@magepunk2376 ldk bro, l bought book its legit 🤷🏼♂️
Last year, a friend recommended me...this is now my sign to buy
The Catholic Church squares this circle - Catholics never claim that the Bible is sufficient on its own. It needs the Church, and the Church's magisterium. It belongs to the Church. We don't propose Sola Scriptura, so we don't have this problem.
So all you have is stuff you've made up.
In my family growing up it was our tradition to not look at the picture on the box when doing a jigsaw puzzle. We still managed to finish the puzzle. Metaphor fail.
That wasn't the metaphor. The metaphor was a big box of mismatched LEGO sets, because there is no single univocal message in the Bible, as the puzzle metaphor implies. That's why the puzzle metaphor is wrong
@@toddbarton1049 The way the puzzle metaphor would work is to say the pieces all have different solid colors and any piece can fit with any other to make a picture of any size showing pretty much anything you want.
Sure, this all makes sense, except that if you didn't know Jesus wanted the border closed, you might read past it in the texts. So the big picture is obviously the way to go.
Dan, I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree with you. I don't think you're approach to playing with Legos sounds like much fun at all. 🤣
Is there a single religion that puts data over dogma?
Secular Humanism
There are some Christians that I am aware of that strive to understand the natural world and Bible to the most accurate extent possible based on the available evidence, so you could argue they put data over dogma.
Progressive Judaism and Quakers don't have dogma. Neither do CofC, formerly RLDS. Wicca doesn't have dogma. Not a lot, but non dogmatic religions do exist.
Question: is the cross ✝️ Christian? 🤔
Not exclusively, but predominantly.
Roman. They were the ones using the cross the most.
What does the question even mean?
The cross has certainly become a Christian symbol, but you know that.
Yes and no. We need to do BOTH.
First, understand the pieces with their individual messages as well as the strings of pieces with their messages. Second, understand the overall picture and its multiple themes including its changing perceptions of deity in light of their fulfilment in the self-revelation of God in Jesus.
"Then beginning with Moses and all the prophets, [Jesus] interpreted to them the things about himself in all the scriptures."
I appreciate you've seen the errors in modern fundy Christianity, but then you've gone and thrown the baby out with the bathwater.
"Second, understand the overall picture and its multiple themes including its changing perceptions of deity in light of their fulfilment in the self-revelation of God in Jesus."
The problem of course is that there is no unified picture on the box. If there were and it was clear and easy to get to (and even if there is such a thing clearly no one right now has any idea what it is), then we would not have any debates about Christian doctrine and thus many MANY different denominations each claiming that their picture on the box is the one true complete and CORRECT picture on the box while convincing no one else of the claim since they practically cannot show how and why theirs is the one true picture.
Heck don't even speak about Christian denominations, INDIVIDUAL CHRISTIANS all have their own subjective "picture on the box" that take from one or more of the doctrines, their own and others included, plus with differences here and there. I've seen "Christians" who call them selves "Christians" but don't believe that their god is all powerful, or that the trinity or Jesus is even a thing or is important.
So what you're attempting to do is technically impossible without that one true big picture. Whatever picture you come up with would be your own subjective opinion of what the TRUE picture is (if there even is one) and there would be no way for you to actually demonstrate how that picture of yours is in fact the true one apart from appealing to faith and emotion to get people to "believe that it is the one true one".
And that is Christianity and indeed religion in a nutshell.
"I appreciate you've seen the errors in modern fundy Christianity, but then you've gone and thrown the baby out with the bathwater."
The problem of course is you cannot show how the fundamentalists of today have the incorrect picture. We can in fact say that fundamentalists are wrong or bad with regards to other things, let's say societal cohesion or equality or indeed even straight up sense. But with regards to their interpretation of the Bible, unless you already have the true big picture and can demonstrate beyond any reasonable doubt that it is in fact the true big picture, how can you then say that the fundies' picture is the incorrect one? It would then be a matter of you measuring up your subjective picture that you believe is the true one to THEIR subjective picture which THY think is the true one and what would result from that is you calling them bad for not adhering to THEIR picture and them doing the same to you for not adhering to THEIR picture.
In fact, strangely enough, the picture that fundamentalists have may in fact be closer to the original picture of Christianity than any other Christian's picture and that's because fundamentalists believe that their god is perfect and that anything that he says and does goes. Hence all that slavery, genocide and whatever all the things that he did and commanded? Good simply and only because he did it, and how DARE anyone question that he could even not be good huh? Do you want the inquisition to burn your ass at the stake?
If you were to look at the OT you'll find that such is the main overarching message, one that is never contradicted by the NT, is that the Christian god does whatever he wants because he is the Christian god and whatever the Christian god does or commands is good and should never be seen as otherwise. To NOT do as this god commands, no matter what this god commands, is by definition by this view, bad. You see this clearly in the stories of Abraham and Job. And you see it more when people technically don't like what their god seemingly has in store for them or has done to them but are willing to accept it simply because it's "god's will" and who are they to even thin about going against it?
But as for those who DO go against that will and who grumble and complain that what god is doing to them is something the can't accept? They get the fire and brimstone, or in Job's case, because of plot armor, he simply gets told to STFU.
And that is the mindset that has been maintained throughout history till today. Even now Christians will never be willing to admit that their god could be wrong or that their god was mistaken unless they are also willing to let go of their faith. And yet this is what the fundamentalists adhere to most closely and are most honest about it.
Even if you were to accept the notion that you can't make sense of the bible without looking at "the picture on the box," you'd still have to explain why an omniscient, omnipotent, and all good god would deliver his "word" to us in the form of a puzzle that, despite thousands of years of effort, still has no agreed upon solution. My hypothesis would be that, if god exists, then he's either a incompetent hack, or a malign trickster, or, somehow, both at once, and gave us a puzzle that could not be solved either because that was the best he could do, or because he hates us.
Perhaps you hate yourselves. Is there any reason for example why millions of people should starve to death? Do multibillionaires really need more money? What are they willing to do to get more? And you wanna find fault elsewhere. Sorry, but mankind has proven to be a tyrant and a fool.
Your hypothesis is because you have the exact same presuppositions and dogmas about what "the Bible" is supposed to be and how we got it as fundies do.
Or it could be that humans made up god and project all their insecurities on to their invention in order to understand it.
@@byrondickens : Uh . . . whut? I've made no "suppositions" at all. I've simply suggested that (a) if you believe there is a god (I don't) and (b) you believe that the bible contains a factual record of his exploits (I don't), or even merely a record of the beliefs its authors had about his exploits (which seems true), then the exploits themselves are prima facie evidence that the god of the bible is either stupid or malicious or both. But perhaps you think that the bible is evidence for some other characterizations of the god whose story it purports to narrate. If so, do tell.
@@Jamienewman0 The hell you haven't. "... a ... god would deliver his 'word' to us...." is a massive presupposition right there and, like I said, exactly the same one that fundies have. The only difference is that you are playing on the other team but you are still claiming that is what "the Bible" is SUPPOSED to be.
Most Christians believe that the biblical authors were AUTHORS and not stenographers.
So you're telling me that Christ didn't come into being to fulfill the covenants of Old Testament, and that the Jews aren't God's Chosen to the land of "Israel"? Oh dear, the sky is falling.
The biblical "land of Israel" is a collection of stars aka constellations. As summer (hello Ham/Haran) Israel consists of Leo (noble/royal head), Virgo (palm frond/branch), Reed (Libra), and the lying tail aka Scorpio. Isaiah 9 (in one day) describes the position of the signs at the spring equinox. This is where the Mesiah (son of IUpiter) makes his appearance as the spring sun.
Does the Bible Project assume a big picture? I think they do but wanted to get other thoughts.
They will say the Bible is a unified story that culminates in Jesus, but they will also acknowledge various perspectives/voices within the text.
Yes, and, they also recognize that the Bible is not univocal as it is a collection of texts. However, they openly state their lenses and faith commitment up front. It is possible to engage the Bible critically and be a Christian (I mean, Dr. McClellan is a practicing Mormon). I’m in full time congregational ministry and don’t think much of the Bible is historical (at least in the Modern, Western sense of historical) nor is it meant to be.
@@Thoughtful_Theologian Well, you admit that Jesus of the Nt was wrong. He falsely believed Moses wrote the books as well as Isaiah and other prophets and that the Scripture he knew was God's word and preserved. But we know that's not true. The biblical Exodus also didnt happen. That's why I rejected Xtianity altogether.
@@Cr-pj8bz there are inaccuracies in the New Testament texts that depict Jesus. Whether Jesus believed Moses wrote the first 5 books of the OT is irrelevant. When I preach or teach from the pastoral epistles, I refer to the writer as Paul not because I think Paul wrote them (he more than likely did not), but because authorship has been attributed to him and is widely accepted by those in my faith tradition.
Jesus is never attributed as saying anything about scripture as “God’s word and preserved” (whatever that means). The “Old Testament” was not a set collection of texts in the first century. And, Jesus isn’t attributed as referring to them as such.
@Thoughtful_Theologian John 10:35 NIV - If he called them 'gods,' to whom
If he called them 'gods,' to whom the *word of God* came-and *Scripture cannot be set aside*
Everyone has their own interpretation of what the Bible says. People can decide what to accept, not accept, etc.
I don't think people have to accept the Bible as having ONE unifying meaning. People should be free to interpret it as they like.
Hard disagree.
First thing you need to do is read the Gospels in their original language Hebrew. Now When you translate Hebrew into Greek you lose a lot also you cannot take that translation and translate in back into the original manuscript having lost so much, unless you have manuscripts the manuscripts in their original Hebrew. Now they have been found and show the errors we believed and were taught. As Scriptures say we will repent of the lies we inherited from our fathers. How can you accurately interpret scripture when while being translated it was already given a false interpretation? For example where ever it says as" being interpreted "as meaning or" it is written" that shows interpretation from the original Hebrew and it is written shows from where? the Hebrew Scriptures..
@@Leolakey the Gospels were not written originally in Hebrew but Greek.
Dan can and does read the original Hebrew. That's literally what he got his degree in. And the Gospels were written in koine Greek, not Hebrew. This is just embarrassing for you 😂
@toddbarton1049 🤣🤣
OK, the elephant in the room.
The vast majority of the texts included in the Bible were not written by/for Graeco-Roman pagans. Trying to adapt the texts to fit someone else's cultural narrative creates dissonance.
isn't this "picture on the box" literally just a bias, that is objectively a bad metaphor
How do you break from this idea Christians and apologists convince you that you need to treat Christianity as innocent until proven guilty? I want to know it's wrong in whatever form can be presented otherwise I risk it being correct.
2:37 what was meant by “Go Ninja go” 💜💜 and that of course assumes that the cartoons are in Cannon
The picture is on the church doctrines and the believers’ heads, and it changes, depending on the argument at hand.
If what you say here is true, then it cannot be a message from a God unless that God wants us confused and battling each other over interpretation. If that is the case, screw that God. If it isnt a message from a God then the book is useless except as a reminder of what stupid things people will believe. Just BS that man made up and men still fight over, an overall detriment to mankind that should be forgotten.
The picture on the box is “your God is one.” That’s basically it, though there are of course oodles of machinations. Even Jesus said it.
You can't build a religion out of those pieces without a picture on the box.
But then you're shoving pieces from different boxes into a new box they weren't from originally.
Where's the box?
@@bertilow There is no box. There was never a box.
One of the lego pieces is child indoctrination.
@@plattbagarn All the different pictures include that piece.
TRY READING ANY BOOK IN THE SAME METHOD AS CLERGY DO IN CHURCH.
"BOOK, CHAPTER & VERSE, THEN ANOTHER BOOK, CHAPTER & VERSE, AD NAUSEUM.
HISTORY BOOK IN SAME METHOD: CIVIL WAR, DEPRESSION, THE NORTHWEST PASSAGE, DEATH OF KENNEDY, SPACE!
YOU CANNOT LEARN MUCH IN THIS MANNER.
I still don't agree with you on this. Although I've not heard it put this way before, "the image on the Box." But let me give you a counter example. If I was to talk about the overall message and theme of Norton's American literature anthology. And I told you it seemed to affirm rugged individualism, capitalism, an entrepreneurial spirit, a rebellious nature, and a sense of inalienable rights. How is this statement not correct? And how is that not an overall arching theme of the selection of writings in the anthology even if one or two works in the collection have counter narratives, yet still it is an overarching theme and narrative that emerges from collecting these different authors and differing works together.
I do believe the overall message is salvation through God. I do understand that interpretation issue within the church. Thanks Mr. McClellan
Salvation from what?
Then you haven't really been paying attention. There is no overall message. There can't be except for the one you choose to arbitrarily impose.
No. The Ot is very clear to keep the commandments to be saved. The idea of a human sacrifice contradicts it
@@rainbowkrampus Just because OP believes in said message (they haven’t asserted it as fact that every reader should adhere to) doesn’t mean they haven’t been paying attention.
Ok do islam next.
You won’t get the result you’re hoping for.
@ whatever result an actual critical scholar has from objective research is the result i am looking for. Challenging dogmas and beliefs and ideas merely backed by authority figures is what i am looking for. Why would a critical scholar not do that?
@spiritus1130, he is a biblical scholar not a quranic scholar
He's a Bible scholar. There's this crazy idea in academia that you don't speak about things you know nothing about. It would be awesome if apologists would do the same.
Are you going to pay for him to go back to university and get a second doctorate???
Unfortunately you yourself haven't realized the unified narrative. You need to understand nature and how living creatures work. Without this background, you will never realize what the mythologies are talking about. You never talk about nature, all you talk about is what everyone is talking about in their own interpretation. The Bible is not to be interpreted, it is to be recognized. But you are so deep in the mainstream narrative that you can't see the truth of the mythology. You never read the Bible, I promise you that.
Imagine telling a literal Bible scholar, who has read the original Hebrew manuscripts, that he hasn't read the Bible 🙄
@toddbarton1049 oh he knows the words but he doesn't understand the meaning of the narrative. Neither do you.
@toddbarton1049 I don't have to imagine, I just did it.
@toddbarton1049 If you think "the beginning" means of existence, then you have no idea what you are reading about. It's the beginning of life, not existence. But you can't see that obvious truth because your are so bent on the modern day interpretation, but like I said, there is no interpretation, only understanding. Dan doesn't understand obviously.
@@chumpchangechamp3643 I mean, have you seen any of his other videos? He talks a lot about how the Bible has no inherent meaning, the only meaning is what every single individual reader does to negotiate with the text. You seem to think he sees it like mainstream evangelical Christianity does. I assure you he does not. And you just come off as pretentious, like you are one of the few with the secret "real" meaning. It's just cringey.