Another creator I followed posted an apology for a mistake they made recently. It is so awesome to see that kind of thing and something there needs to be a lot more of on social media.
This is the difference between a scholar and an apologist; a scholar will accept when he's shown to be wrong, because he actually cares about being truthful. An apologist will pretend the correction never happened and continue saying the same incorrect things over and over (which is the point a mistake becomes a lie).
@@barbarapeterson4000 Look at the timestamp on Dan's correction and the timestamp on Sentinel Excusegists video. Unless they didn't bother to look at even the literally first pinned comment, yes, they made their accusation after he had issued a correction.
@@barbarapeterson4000 I think, if you reread what they wrote, you'll find that it was a statement about generic apologists vs generic scholars, "an apologist" "a scholar". So it's obviously not accusing any single person of anything.
Not only that, but they are currently engaging in "scientific studies" that are neither scientific, nor meet the definition of a good study. It's all about deception with them.
I'll be honest, i was confused for 87% of this video. For 10% of the video i was impressed with your integrity. 3% of the video i was playing with the dog.
Definitely less than 95%, but likely more than 90%. In absolutely no way, shape, or form whatsoever “word-for-word identical.” As I said in my comment on your video, I’m happy to join you to clear the air on our misunderstandings, but I’m not interested in continuing the back-and-forth in comments, particularly when there are clearly misunderstandings taking place.
@@maklelan I simply wonder if if you think that Jesus over time is worried about exact interpretations in written word or spiritual intent. Ideally they would be as close as possible, but I don't think spelling or grammar is what Jesus would be worried about. Those who believe in the Holy Spirit know that when God writes He inscribes things in our hearts and minds of which no parchment is necessary. I appreciate the spirit of your video as you are making peace and having clear open dialogue on what people hold very sacred. I simply can't agree with the scalpel you are taking to what was stated by those searching for God, as when God states He is law and love though both Jesus and the disciples testimony, you are making things very legalistic. If our very thoughts are things in God, I don't see how these things are productive. I am a PhD Biostatistician working in medical research and I appreciate rigorous study. I would simply contend that any Christian who truly wants to covey what Jesus did is probably going to put more stock in the spirit of the meaning rather that getting so wrapped up in the minutia where the meaning is maintained in both old and new testament documents. This is maybe misapplied rigor or effort. I do think that being Christian, we are trying to come back in agreement through the body of Christ in unity of spirit and if we dwell upon spelling and grammar, how does that translate spiritually? So, 1000 year difference and meaning maintained with much of the words (90-95%) being the same with the 1300 variants including spelling, words, and grammatical norms. Yes, I think misapplied rigor. I love the openness of discussion, but my suspicion is when Jesus hit the planet many who maintained the legalistic view of Torah and the Talmud met the living word and let him walk right on by. I hope going forward people who think Jesus is truly the Son of God and God on the planet can get beyond squabbling over things like this. Enjoy the wk.
@@maklelanfair enough. I don’t want a back and forth over comments or videos. I already conceded Wes could have been more precise with his language and I think he’d agree. But we gotta admit, 90% is pretty good. 90% is Still an A- Dan 😂 let’s figure out a way to get together and get additional clarity as time permits. I’d love that.
Absolutely ridiculous. Wes said "word for word". He didn't just say it. He emphasized it. He said scholars were amazed by it. He speaks and behaves as if he knows what he's talking about. He has the credentials to back it up. I'm not going to cut him any slack for saying it and nobody else should.
Yes, this is key. The effect of this on lay audiences would be to encourage the idea of divine inspiration. But still Dan has done the right thing (as we have come to expect.)
@@martifingers sure Dan has done the right thing. But none of it is in the realm of saying "word for word". On the Joe Rogan podcast so Joe can go Wow! It's ridiculous.
@randybaker6042 Maybe you're blowing it out of proportion. It was a live talk, and wes overspoke and was of by 5% so what. That changes nothing. It wasn't malicious. It's an overreaction at best. Im.nit even a fan of wes and I can admit that. Also, I think generally most christians know the accuracy and don't take everything literally in regard to opinion.
@@endygonewild2899And this separates you from 99% of commentators on Dan's videos, who have 1 standard for Dan and a different standard for any Christian apologists he encounters!
@@endygonewild2899exactly Wes owned his error. Dan owned his. The viewing populace enjoys Dan primarily because he shares liberal views. I love Dan for his scholarly take and clear in-depth insight. I don't care for his liberal politics but his audience hinges on that. I still respect the man and his intellect but his audience are total block heads seeking affirmation for their feelings and political objectives.
@endygonewild2899 Wes is probably in the 1% that will. Although I despise even my own over simplification of these things, an apologist admitting/correcting an error (in my experience) is a very rare event.
If someone apologized about being wrong about Dan, that would be a Dan apologist. Christian apologists are apologizing about being wrong about something else.
Wes apologized, and is it coincidence than Dan among hundreds of other TH-camrs are going after a scholar who’s rightly in the spotlight at the moment?
I respect anyone who can acknowledge their mistakes and be man/woman to apologize. Just think how much better off we would be if our elected officials did the same!
Love it when scholars can look at what they have said or done, and can issue retractions and/or apologies where appropriate. I tip my hat to you, Dan, if i only had a hat. Also, we need more Morty! Have a good day!
_"I'm shocked. Just shocked that a Christian Apologist would so blatantly mis-characterize something a Biblical scholar stated in an attempt to embarrass that scholar! That is just so un-Christ like too!"_
It sounds like you got a little carried away in your faith demoting rhetorical exaggerations. Even your apology seems a bit flaccid imo. The agreement is definitely more than 90%. And if we disregard the many insignificant differences in spelling the agreement will be much greater.
@@maklelan Wes misspoke and presented incorrect information on a 3 hour podcast. You misspoke and presented incorrect information on an 8 minute scripted video. The real "data without the dogma" is "No, 1QIsaa is not word for word with the Masoretic text but it is remarkably similar considering the Masoretic text is from 1000 years later." Instead you rushed out your usual counter-apologetic clown show and made the same mistake you were trying to dunk on Wes for.
@@maklelan So you're claiming that the MT agrees with the Great Isaiah scroll in perhaps as little as 90% of its content, even excluding minor orthographic variants?
@@MichaelVFlowers I'm estimating because I haven't gone through and counted every single word listed in DJD 32's list of textual variants, but yeah, it's less than 95% and probably north of 90%.
@@maklelan Do you mean you haven't sorted out the minor orthographic variants from the substantial variants? If so, that would conflict with what you just said. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you have at least done that much. How about other insignificant differences, like the differences in word order or even such differences as the inclusion of a direct object marker? Those will generally not change the meaning of a text. I think you're trying to exaggerate the number of textual variants in order to imply that the MT is unreliable. Peter Flint's point was that this kind of skepticism is not supported by the data.
This was kind of like the joking comment I made. Inconsistency is probably a better word than error but doesn’t take away from the fact that the book is not inerrant. It’s just a semantic distraction. Thank you Dan.
Thanks Dan. You've just done something that the vast majority of apologists have never done and will never do. It's also interesting to note that the sentinal apologetics content creator posted his video trying to embarrass you AFTER you pinned your correction comment.
Once again thank you for your content Dan. It's easy to see that many people have terrible communication skills and vocabulary skills. And often they just outright lie.
Ah yes, that famous commandment: "Thou shalt not bear false witness, for this is a special privilege reserved for preachers and apologist. I am the Lᴏʀᴅ"
"Bearing false witness" means perjury. This all-too-frequent comment perfectly illustrates the problem with reading the Bible in a strictly and woodenly literal way. Imagine you're in Germany in 1943 and you are hiding some people who are in danger of being rounded up and put on an eastbound train to somewhere in occupied Poland. If the guys in black uniforms come knocking, do you really think you're supposed to say "oh, yeah. They're right up there in the attic" instead of "The Grenemeyers? Who are they? I have no idea what you're talking about."
Dan is a true scholar. This, of course, distinguishes him from those so-called "apologists" who know very little and never make corrections or offer apologies when they misspeak.
You're awesome. Your work is awesome. Your commitment to being honest is awesome. You obviously hold a much higher standard for yourself than most people when it comes to truth and honesty in your work, certainly a much higher standard than do apologists! Nothing but 🙌 🙌 🙌 here for you Dr McClellan!
The worst you could say about what Dan said was that he needed to either say on average, or when compared to all manuscripts. The differences are there regardless, and it still proves the need for critical scholarship. The great Isaiah scroll is the oldest and has many mistakes. The Septuagint was the largely basis for Christianity, and it was considered inerrant by some though it differs from the MT and often dogmatically misrepresents the Hebrew. There are often not only one, but many variant readings for a single verse. It's complex enough that no simple statement could accurately represent it.
One of the worst things about the doctrine of word for word divine inspiration is that it causes useless dumb arguments like this to be the focus of discussions instead of appreciating the bible for what it is: a body of ancient literature comparable to other epic myth (i don't mean myth in a bad way) cycles, that has deeply important things to say about the nature of humanity and existence, a record of an ancient civilisation that has managed to continue in a few different forms until today, and a record of philosophical argumentation and thought. It upsets me that people write off the bible because of this dominant idea that it has to all be word for word the same as "the original" or it's trash. Anyway. Rant over. Thanks for the work you do Dan!
I'm not one to compliment "apologists" (those who make excuses Lol!) But Dan is no apologist. This man is a bible scholar for sure. I respect your intellectual probity. Finally someone I can tolerate.
You set a good example of how to correct in such instances. Wes needs some caution however as he often overshoots to some extent. This can always be characterised as innocent error and of course we are all human but the impact is one of import in that Joe Rogan was very impressed by what was said and it had an impact on him. This is similarl to the Billy Carson dynamic though no nowhere near as bad. That is making statements that are very impactful to Joe Rogan that exceeds the sober conclusions of science. Another area of difficulty for Wes is the sheer range of his knowledge he is bound to make some errors because you can't be an expert in everything.
Uh, why are you assuming I made the YT short as mockery to you? What's your "data" to support that? Nearly ~8 hours ago, I left this reply to you ... not sure if you missed it or intentionally ignored it, but it's still relevant (which, by the way, thank you for clarifying that 1QIsaA and the MT are 90% to 95% in agreement): _I'm aware about all those details, no need to elaborate. I've also exhausted all of Flint's published work that I could attain (hence this random snippet that came to memory). My point in making this short is in regards to your irritation at Wes' explanation. You're assuming he's deliberately making an egregious "apologetic" (thereby misleading his audience for the sake of "apologetics"), but I didn't see him engage in apologetics per se. Yes, Wes gave (indirectly) a "100%" statistic. In contrast, Flint asserted "99%" (using just two verses). Naturally Flint hasn't exhausted all the variants in his lecture (thereby reducing the "99%" stats). I'm curious about whether or not you'd throw Flint under the "apologetic" bus the way you did Wes._
Not indirectly. Quite directly. Unequivocally. When that's false. And he acted like he had the expertise to know that it did. The entire debate is about the 100% vs. 99%. And you mischaracterizing this discussion is part of why you are not being extended the charity he *did* extend to Wes. Which you decided not to mention, nor to mention the importance of that 90-95%, as that tells us that in fact the text is nowhere near corruption immune and that scribes made quite ordinary errors (and, in fact, ideologically motivated errors), which is the entire point of the discussion.
You’re intellectually dishonest, you do not argue in good faith, and you try to ensnare us with little twistings and deceptions. You care nothing for truth, facts, or data. Rather you trade in lies and dogma. Am I making my opinion clear enough for you? Let me make it even simpler. You are a minion of the adversary, the great deceiver. Like many of his foul minions, you pose as a Christian. You might have even convinced yourself that you represent Christ, that you are a “Sentinel” for Christ. But your methods betray you. Begone, liar. I shun you. Whew!😅
Imagine that he owns his mistake and apologizes. chooses to be of integrity. It's like he's not only a good human he also walks the walk of a true Christian.
Thank you, Dan. The real question is; Why would anyone copy any written word or words incorrectly in the first place? A copy can only be made from an original. Any differences HAVE to be an intentional error. A proofread between the original and the copy would quickly catch the 'error'. But, if the error stands, there was no mistake. It can only be viewed as an intentional change or difference for whatever biased reason. Numerous errors in a particular document (manuscript) is very suspect. As my mother always said . . . there's never just ONE roach! If I copy the name 'Wesley Huff' but write it down as 'Weslee Huf' on a piece of paper . . . I have introduced two variants out of ten possible letters. That is a 20% error factor. But, would you still recognize his name? Probably yes. Do my errors change the context? Probably not. Therefore, the variants only matter if you can prove I intentionally changed the meaning or context from the original. My question: What is the actual context changing 'error factor' for the OT Book of Isaiah? 10%? 5%? 1%? Because, even one half of one percent would challenge any argument for Biblical inerrancy! Period!
Thou shalt construct a straw man, whenever thou feel it necessary. Thou shalt make it 12 cubits high... Yeah i don't know in which text some people find this passage but apparently it's a variant somewhere.
No offense, but isn’t this sort of a natural consequence of the way you present information on your channel? I tend to agree with most everything you say, but you are pretty aggressive and frankly when you present your rapid fire takedowns, it can end up sounding a little hostile at times. Rather than being an invitation to learn and research like you have over the years, it sometimes comes across as more negative and challenging. That approach invites harsh criticism when you do make a mistake. I appreciate that you have made this video with a straightforward explanation and apology but at the same time you are even coming off a little here like you are anticipating the next chess move in the way you describe your apology and correction. Maybe this is a necessary defense against other commenters, I don’t know.
The focus on variants here and in the New Testament as Bart Ehrman has done is like trying to count how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. It really has no value to anyone but a scholar with time on his hands. Years ago now after I had completed college and had majored in Literature, English grammar and linguistics, I had a conversation with my pastor about inspiration and the biblical text. I asked whether inspiration was about the particular words or the ideas. Theologians and strict grammarians might say so. My pastor said so. Writers and readers of literature might not. A writer can express the same idea in a variety of ways without modifying the idea at all. Purists may complain, but anyone who writes knows that is true. One way may seem better than the other, but they need not convey different ideas. They are variants. When you get out a text of the OT or NT with a critical apparatus the variants are many and obvious. But very few change the ideas. Ehrman has made hay on the number of variants by suggesting that this makes the text unreliable. That is nutty. Ninty-nine percent of the variants are a matter of spelling or a difference in the form of the word. The other one percent are easily identified and explained. Most modern translations have footnotes that do that. The power of the Bible does not rest on the particular words, even though I enjoy digging into that. A translation in Coptic or the KJV or the Message do not muddle up the ideas to the place where they lose their power. That is what is important.
For most of us, yes. For groups which are committed to biblical inerrancy, it is a real issue that the Bible has changed, and sometimes in materially significant ways.
Don’t forget this guy is Mormon. This is significant because this gives context to how he will show issues about grammatical problems but have no change in the context of biblical texts he will criticize. Yes there are grammatical all throughout the Biblical translations, but all is contextually preserved.
No, my Mormonism is entirely insignificant, as I have repeatedly demonstrated. The notion "all is contextually preserved" is a dogma that is not supported by any data.
I would have thought that an all powerful loving invested and intervening God would have preserved his word (scriptures) in a more durable way like Gold plates or stainless steel, I don't know. You know, a more reliable sanctify way without a single mistake.
Not necessarily, depending on your formulation of inerrancy and on the texts' disagreement. If God had theoretically preserved the text such that nothing important differed, but just minor words with minor meanings did differ, you're still left with a text you can call the word of god in a meaningful way. Might be different for bigger swaths of text, bigger theological differences, or more important errors (like e.g. 1 Timothy not being written by Paul, which is something a lot of scholars think is likely)
I am not a biblical scholar; I do not have the time, patience, or mental health to fact-check every claim I've seen you make. And I had begun to have some concerns about your credibility... not due to anything you've said, but simply due to the volume of your output. That's unfair on its face, but it's been my experience that the content creators with the highest turnover tend to have the lowest quality of research. I've been fooled into believing outright lies because they were delivered with the same calm confidence that you speak with. I wasn't going to outright dismiss your claims on that alone, but it was enough to keep me on edge. This admission of error has gone a long way towards softening that edge. I salute your candor and your integrity.
It took me 4 watch throughs to understand what is going on😅. So the original 1QIsa a is nearly identical to the current masurstic text, but between the two Isaiah readings exists other Bible texts that vary from the two (like the septuigant)?
The comment Dan highlighted under the video when he found his mistake if anyone's interested : NB: I do have a correction to make to my video. I said there was a difference from the MT in almost every verse of the book of Isaiah, but the reality is that it's only about 60-75% of the verses that have a variant of some kind. I was thinking of the fact that there are variants from a major manuscript or from other DSS Isaiah manuscripts in almost every single verse of 1QIsa-a, but I only referred to differences from MT, and in doing so I misspoke.
Hey Dan I'm keen to know your opinion on Wes placing the gospel of John in the first century? Not sure if this is something you have covered before? Keep up the good work and happy new year!
I appreciate humans who acknowledge their mistakes.
Thank you.
Another creator I followed posted an apology for a mistake they made recently. It is so awesome to see that kind of thing and something there needs to be a lot more of on social media.
I appreciate members of other species when they acknowledge their mistakes as well. No species discrimination, I say.
Agree!
And all done without a ukelele!
I would have appreciated a musical number.
ALL ABOARD THE TOXIC GOSSIP TRAIN 🎶
🏆🏆🏆
Perhaps a dance number would be illustrative.
That's a fault, not a virtue.
Now that’s integrity. Which is why I admire you so much, Dan. Thank you.
Can't have integrity without defining variants. It's misleading us.
@ if you’re too uneducated to understand basic definitions, that’s on you.
@@CharlesPayet not on me... for others watching.
"This was supposed to embarrass me" I love that response. Love the straightforward accountability as well. Solid A+ 👏
This is the difference between a scholar and an apologist; a scholar will accept when he's shown to be wrong, because he actually cares about being truthful. An apologist will pretend the correction never happened and continue saying the same incorrect things over and over (which is the point a mistake becomes a lie).
Are you accusing Sentinel of having seen Dan's correction and still accusing him of being wrong?
@@barbarapeterson4000 Look at the timestamp on Dan's correction and the timestamp on Sentinel Excusegists video. Unless they didn't bother to look at even the literally first pinned comment, yes, they made their accusation after he had issued a correction.
@@barbarapeterson4000 I think, if you reread what they wrote, you'll find that it was a statement about generic apologists vs generic scholars, "an apologist" "a scholar". So it's obviously not accusing any single person of anything.
Not only that, but they are currently engaging in "scientific studies" that are neither scientific, nor meet the definition of a good study. It's all about deception with them.
@@petercollins7730 Good catch.
I'll be honest, i was confused for 87% of this video. For 10% of the video i was impressed with your integrity. 3% of the video i was playing with the dog.
Is the dog a good dog?
Same.. 😊
Don't overdo it or you'll go blind
😂 I listened for like two minutes and now I’m scrolling comments not listening at all, waiting for the video to end 😂
🤣🤣🤣
I'm not emotionally prepared for integrity on the internet.
Right!?!?! 😮
Yes, it's slightly disconcerting. A glimpse of how things could be...
As always, props to Dan for the intellectual honesty. Also, props to Wes for the maturity in his response. If only Sentinel Apologetics got the memo.
Props to you for apologizing and owning it. Well done Dan… so it’s 95% the same?
Definitely less than 95%, but likely more than 90%. In absolutely no way, shape, or form whatsoever “word-for-word identical.” As I said in my comment on your video, I’m happy to join you to clear the air on our misunderstandings, but I’m not interested in continuing the back-and-forth in comments, particularly when there are clearly misunderstandings taking place.
@@maklelan I simply wonder if if you think that Jesus over time is worried about exact interpretations in written word or spiritual intent. Ideally they would be as close as possible, but I don't think spelling or grammar is what Jesus would be worried about. Those who believe in the Holy Spirit know that when God writes He inscribes things in our hearts and minds of which no parchment is necessary. I appreciate the spirit of your video as you are making peace and having clear open dialogue on what people hold very sacred. I simply can't agree with the scalpel you are taking to what was stated by those searching for God, as when God states He is law and love though both Jesus and the disciples testimony, you are making things very legalistic. If our very thoughts are things in God, I don't see how these things are productive. I am a PhD Biostatistician working in medical research and I appreciate rigorous study. I would simply contend that any Christian who truly wants to covey what Jesus did is probably going to put more stock in the spirit of the meaning rather that getting so wrapped up in the minutia where the meaning is maintained in both old and new testament documents. This is maybe misapplied rigor or effort. I do think that being Christian, we are trying to come back in agreement through the body of Christ in unity of spirit and if we dwell upon spelling and grammar, how does that translate spiritually? So, 1000 year difference and meaning maintained with much of the words (90-95%) being the same with the 1300 variants including spelling, words, and grammatical norms. Yes, I think misapplied rigor. I love the openness of discussion, but my suspicion is when Jesus hit the planet many who maintained the legalistic view of Torah and the Talmud met the living word and let him walk right on by. I hope going forward people who think Jesus is truly the Son of God and God on the planet can get beyond squabbling over things like this. Enjoy the wk.
@@maklelanfair enough. I don’t want a back and forth over comments or videos. I already conceded Wes could have been more precise with his language and I think he’d agree. But we gotta admit, 90% is pretty good. 90% is Still an A- Dan 😂 let’s figure out a way to get together and get additional clarity as time permits. I’d love that.
Keep doing you Dan you are an Honorable man stay true.
Absolutely ridiculous. Wes said "word for word". He didn't just say it. He emphasized it. He said scholars were amazed by it.
He speaks and behaves as if he knows what he's talking about. He has the credentials to back it up.
I'm not going to cut him any slack for saying it and nobody else should.
Yes, this is key. The effect of this on lay audiences would be to encourage the idea of divine inspiration.
But still Dan has done the right thing (as we have come to expect.)
So what's this change?
@@martifingers sure Dan has done the right thing. But none of it is in the realm of saying "word for word". On the Joe Rogan podcast so Joe can go Wow!
It's ridiculous.
@@Swordoftruth289 nothing changes anything. Everyone gets to say whatever preposterous crap they like.
@randybaker6042 Maybe you're blowing it out of proportion. It was a live talk, and wes overspoke and was of by 5% so what. That changes nothing. It wasn't malicious. It's an overreaction at best.
Im.nit even a fan of wes and I can admit that.
Also, I think generally most christians know the accuracy and don't take everything literally in regard to opinion.
And this separates you from 99% (see what I did there?) of Christian apologists and how they refuse to admit being incorrect when they are.
Wes did that as well
@@endygonewild2899And this separates you from 99% of commentators on Dan's videos, who have 1 standard for Dan and a different standard for any Christian apologists he encounters!
@@endygonewild2899exactly Wes owned his error. Dan owned his. The viewing populace enjoys Dan primarily because he shares liberal views. I love Dan for his scholarly take and clear in-depth insight. I don't care for his liberal politics but his audience hinges on that. I still respect the man and his intellect but his audience are total block heads seeking affirmation for their feelings and political objectives.
@@Bigswinghae spot on
@endygonewild2899 Wes is probably in the 1% that will. Although I despise even my own over simplification of these things, an apologist admitting/correcting an error (in my experience) is a very rare event.
Dan, it is refreshing that you acknowledge when you got something wrong. So many people don't do that.
That speaks for you and your integrity
Imagine if all educators were as honest as Dan.
Just imagine.
Eucators and scholrs usually are. Faith based apologists, dogma driving historians, etc…not as much.
Most true educators are. You are confusing education with indoctrination, and educators with con artists.
Good for you. I wish all podcasters were so open.
This is why I love this guy!!! Queue the apologists - We NEVER apologize because we're never wrong.
aBsoLuUuUtE tRoOoF
Good stuff. This is what makes real scholars different from apologists. Honesty and integrity 👍🏼
Of course we didn’t mention that there are 3 copies of Isaiah found with the Dead Sea scrolls and they don’t even match each other.
Very nicely done, Dan. Thank you for your integrity and honesty, and the clarification of the matter.
Integirty and Honesty. Main reason you are my-go-to for critical Bible commentary in YT nowadays.
99% is still a mistake, meaning that God has not passed it down unchanged.
Word for word? Word for word!
Ironic that Christian apologists never actually apologize when they are shown to be wrong.
they're paid to not be wrong so theres that lol
If someone apologized about being wrong about Dan, that would be a Dan apologist. Christian apologists are apologizing about being wrong about something else.
Wes literally apologised what are you talking about. Both Wes and Dan apologised but you’re only giving praise to Dan.
Wes apologized, and is it coincidence than Dan among hundreds of other TH-camrs are going after a scholar who’s rightly in the spotlight at the moment?
I respect anyone who can acknowledge their mistakes and be man/woman to apologize. Just think how much better off we would be if our elected officials did the same!
Clearly, this can only be settled by Cage Match, Falls Count Anywhere-Rules!
Thank you for your integrity, Dr. McClellan. I wish every one was as careful to prevent misinformation.
Love it when scholars can look at what they have said or done, and can issue retractions and/or apologies where appropriate. I tip my hat to you, Dan, if i only had a hat.
Also, we need more Morty!
Have a good day!
Appreciate this Dan! Helps me trust you and Wes as well. Way to go scholars!
You are very generous towards Wes Huff. I’ve seen enough of his stuff to be deeply suspicious of his intentions.
_"I'm shocked. Just shocked that a Christian Apologist would so blatantly mis-characterize something a Biblical scholar stated in an attempt to embarrass that scholar! That is just so un-Christ like too!"_
It sounds like you got a little carried away in your faith demoting rhetorical exaggerations. Even your apology seems a bit flaccid imo. The agreement is definitely more than 90%. And if we disregard the many insignificant differences in spelling the agreement will be much greater.
No, the textual variants are exclusive of the orthographic variants & the main point of my video remains entirely correct.
@@maklelan Wes misspoke and presented incorrect information on a 3 hour podcast. You misspoke and presented incorrect information on an 8 minute scripted video.
The real "data without the dogma" is "No, 1QIsaa is not word for word with the Masoretic text but it is remarkably similar considering the Masoretic text is from 1000 years later." Instead you rushed out your usual counter-apologetic clown show and made the same mistake you were trying to dunk on Wes for.
@@maklelan So you're claiming that the MT agrees with the Great Isaiah scroll in perhaps as little as 90% of its content, even excluding minor orthographic variants?
@@MichaelVFlowers I'm estimating because I haven't gone through and counted every single word listed in DJD 32's list of textual variants, but yeah, it's less than 95% and probably north of 90%.
@@maklelan Do you mean you haven't sorted out the minor orthographic variants from the substantial variants? If so, that would conflict with what you just said. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you have at least done that much. How about other insignificant differences, like the differences in word order or even such differences as the inclusion of a direct object marker? Those will generally not change the meaning of a text.
I think you're trying to exaggerate the number of textual variants in order to imply that the MT is unreliable. Peter Flint's point was that this kind of skepticism is not supported by the data.
If this were my video, I would have tinted my face red to feign embarrassment 😆 you're doing a great job, man, I appreciate all that you do for us.
This was kind of like the joking comment I made. Inconsistency is probably a better word than error but doesn’t take away from the fact that the book is not inerrant. It’s just a semantic distraction. Thank you Dan.
Thanks Dan. You've just done something that the vast majority of apologists have never done and will never do. It's also interesting to note that the sentinal apologetics content creator posted his video trying to embarrass you AFTER you pinned your correction comment.
You got a like from me as soon as you said correction and apology. You have integrity. Thanks.
Once again thank you for your content Dan. It's easy to see that many people have terrible communication skills and vocabulary skills. And often they just outright lie.
This is absolutely incredible, thank you for being so forward.
Ah yes, that famous commandment: "Thou shalt not bear false witness, for this is a special privilege reserved for preachers and apologist. I am the Lᴏʀᴅ"
"Bearing false witness" means perjury.
This all-too-frequent comment perfectly illustrates the problem with reading the Bible in a strictly and woodenly literal way.
Imagine you're in Germany in 1943 and you are hiding some people who are in danger of being rounded up and put on an eastbound train to somewhere in occupied Poland. If the guys in black uniforms come knocking, do you really think you're supposed to say "oh, yeah. They're right up there in the attic" instead of "The Grenemeyers? Who are they? I have no idea what you're talking about."
You're doing the same kind of thing using the bible for your amusement. What you said is 100% true.
@@byrondickens who would Jesus lie to? C'mon.
But Dan if you're not infallible how will we make you Pope?😁
😝
And the fit for today is the cool pointy hat.
Dan is a true scholar. This, of course, distinguishes him from those so-called "apologists" who know very little and never make corrections or offer apologies when they misspeak.
Nobody is perfect. Love you man.
The Rick voice at the end was worth the wait.
Now that’s Tegrity 🥲
looking forward to Rob's apology - I'm sure he'll be the bigger man and not want to make this persona- sorry, who am I kidding....
You're awesome. Your work is awesome. Your commitment to being honest is awesome.
You obviously hold a much higher standard for yourself than most people when it comes to truth and honesty in your work, certainly a much higher standard than do apologists!
Nothing but 🙌 🙌 🙌 here for you Dr McClellan!
Isn't it great when you have intellectual honesty to admit errors, Pity that fundies aren't able to learn this.
Relatable. "That's not in this specific source, it's in one of the other 10 I've syncretized in order to interpret this phenomenon?!"
Apparently Apologists believe that it is not a sin to tell a lie as long as the lie promotes Christianity.
A mistake is different from a lie.
Thank you, I really enjoy your videos.
Bravo Dan. Adulting like crazy!
I see a lot of people in the comments who didn't seem to listen all the way to the very end.
The worst you could say about what Dan said was that he needed to either say on average, or when compared to all manuscripts. The differences are there regardless, and it still proves the need for critical scholarship. The great Isaiah scroll is the oldest and has many mistakes. The Septuagint was the largely basis for Christianity, and it was considered inerrant by some though it differs from the MT and often dogmatically misrepresents the Hebrew. There are often not only one, but many variant readings for a single verse. It's complex enough that no simple statement could accurately represent it.
I’m just glad to see Dan and Wes interacting with one another. That’s what I’ve been wanting to see ever since the Billy debate.
This is why Dan is the best - nice work!
One of the worst things about the doctrine of word for word divine inspiration is that it causes useless dumb arguments like this to be the focus of discussions instead of appreciating the bible for what it is: a body of ancient literature comparable to other epic myth (i don't mean myth in a bad way) cycles, that has deeply important things to say about the nature of humanity and existence, a record of an ancient civilisation that has managed to continue in a few different forms until today, and a record of philosophical argumentation and thought. It upsets me that people write off the bible because of this dominant idea that it has to all be word for word the same as "the original" or it's trash. Anyway. Rant over. Thanks for the work you do Dan!
Thankful for your integrity!
Out of all the claims Wes made I agree with you this was the “ biggest “ mistake he made.
I'm not one to compliment "apologists" (those who make excuses Lol!) But Dan is no apologist. This man is a bible scholar for sure. I respect your intellectual probity. Finally someone I can tolerate.
You set a good example of how to correct in such instances.
Wes needs some caution however as he often overshoots to some extent. This can always be characterised as innocent error and of course we are all human but the impact is one of import in that Joe Rogan was very impressed by what was said and it had an impact on him. This is similarl to the Billy Carson dynamic though no nowhere near as bad. That is making statements that are very impactful to Joe Rogan that exceeds the sober conclusions of science.
Another area of difficulty for Wes is the sheer range of his knowledge he is bound to make some errors because you can't be an expert in everything.
Your integrity is beyond reproach and Sentinel Apologetics is as usual beneath contempt.
Thanks, Dan! I appreciate this!
It takes a great human to do what you have done sir. You rock 🖖
Thank you Dan. Your scholarship and integrity are always greatly appreciated. ❤
Uh, why are you assuming I made the YT short as mockery to you? What's your "data" to support that? Nearly ~8 hours ago, I left this reply to you ... not sure if you missed it or intentionally ignored it, but it's still relevant (which, by the way, thank you for clarifying that 1QIsaA and the MT are 90% to 95% in agreement):
_I'm aware about all those details, no need to elaborate. I've also exhausted all of Flint's published work that I could attain (hence this random snippet that came to memory). My point in making this short is in regards to your irritation at Wes' explanation. You're assuming he's deliberately making an egregious "apologetic" (thereby misleading his audience for the sake of "apologetics"), but I didn't see him engage in apologetics per se. Yes, Wes gave (indirectly) a "100%" statistic. In contrast, Flint asserted "99%" (using just two verses). Naturally Flint hasn't exhausted all the variants in his lecture (thereby reducing the "99%" stats). I'm curious about whether or not you'd throw Flint under the "apologetic" bus the way you did Wes._
Not indirectly. Quite directly. Unequivocally. When that's false. And he acted like he had the expertise to know that it did. The entire debate is about the 100% vs. 99%. And you mischaracterizing this discussion is part of why you are not being extended the charity he *did* extend to Wes. Which you decided not to mention, nor to mention the importance of that 90-95%, as that tells us that in fact the text is nowhere near corruption immune and that scribes made quite ordinary errors (and, in fact, ideologically motivated errors), which is the entire point of the discussion.
You’re intellectually dishonest, you do not argue in good faith, and you try to ensnare us with little twistings and deceptions. You care nothing for truth, facts, or data. Rather you trade in lies and dogma. Am I making my opinion clear enough for you?
Let me make it even simpler. You are a minion of the adversary, the great deceiver. Like many of his foul minions, you pose as a Christian. You might have even convinced yourself that you represent Christ, that you are a “Sentinel” for Christ.
But your methods betray you. Begone, liar. I shun you.
Whew!😅
So what are the major differences in meaning or message?
Imagine that he owns his mistake and apologizes. chooses to be of integrity. It's like he's not only a good human he also walks the walk of a true Christian.
Felt like this was the smart guy equivalent of the following: “This is an A/B conversation. Why don’t you C your way out of it.”
Thank you for being so finely educated.
is there any public apology of any apologist of any religion doing what Dan is?
Man of integrity - unlike most TH-camrs....
Thank you, Dan.
The real question is; Why would anyone copy any written word or words incorrectly in the first place? A copy can only be made from an original. Any differences HAVE to be an intentional error. A proofread between the original and the copy would quickly catch the 'error'. But, if the error stands, there was no mistake. It can only be viewed as an intentional change or difference for whatever biased reason.
Numerous errors in a particular document (manuscript) is very suspect. As my mother always said . . . there's never just ONE roach! If I copy the name 'Wesley Huff' but write it down as 'Weslee Huf' on a piece of paper . . . I have introduced two variants out of ten possible letters. That is a 20% error factor. But, would you still recognize his name? Probably yes. Do my errors change the context? Probably not. Therefore, the variants only matter if you can prove I intentionally changed the meaning or context from the original.
My question: What is the actual context changing 'error factor' for the OT Book of Isaiah? 10%? 5%? 1%? Because, even one half of one percent would challenge any argument for Biblical inerrancy! Period!
Thou shalt construct a straw man, whenever thou feel it necessary. Thou shalt make it 12 cubits high...
Yeah i don't know in which text some people find this passage but apparently it's a variant somewhere.
"professional scribes are capable of exactly copying manuscripts (their one job)... therefore God"
👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏
No offense, but isn’t this sort of a natural consequence of the way you present information on your channel? I tend to agree with most everything you say, but you are pretty aggressive and frankly when you present your rapid fire takedowns, it can end up sounding a little hostile at times. Rather than being an invitation to learn and research like you have over the years, it sometimes comes across as more negative and challenging. That approach invites harsh criticism when you do make a mistake. I appreciate that you have made this video with a straightforward explanation and apology but at the same time you are even coming off a little here like you are anticipating the next chess move in the way you describe your apology and correction. Maybe this is a necessary defense against other commenters, I don’t know.
Billy could learn from this
Sentinel apologetics being an absolute hack and a clown once more
Thank you Dan!
What would be the reason for these variants?
The focus on variants here and in the New Testament as Bart Ehrman has done is like trying to count how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. It really has no value to anyone but a scholar with time on his hands.
Years ago now after I had completed college and had majored in Literature, English grammar and linguistics, I had a conversation with my pastor about inspiration and the biblical text. I asked whether inspiration was about the particular words or the ideas. Theologians and strict grammarians might say so. My pastor said so. Writers and readers of literature might not.
A writer can express the same idea in a variety of ways without modifying the idea at all. Purists may complain, but anyone who writes knows that is true. One way may seem better than the other, but they need not convey different ideas. They are variants.
When you get out a text of the OT or NT with a critical apparatus the variants are many and obvious. But very few change the ideas. Ehrman has made hay on the number of variants by suggesting that this makes the text unreliable. That is nutty. Ninty-nine percent of the variants are a matter of spelling or a difference in the form of the word. The other one percent are easily identified and explained. Most modern translations have footnotes that do that.
The power of the Bible does not rest on the particular words, even though I enjoy digging into that. A translation in Coptic or the KJV or the Message do not muddle up the ideas to the place where they lose their power. That is what is important.
For most of us, yes. For groups which are committed to biblical inerrancy, it is a real issue that the Bible has changed, and sometimes in materially significant ways.
Don’t forget this guy is Mormon. This is significant because this gives context to how he will show issues about grammatical problems but have no change in the context of biblical texts he will criticize. Yes there are grammatical all throughout the Biblical translations, but all is contextually preserved.
No, my Mormonism is entirely insignificant, as I have repeatedly demonstrated. The notion "all is contextually preserved" is a dogma that is not supported by any data.
'Faith promoting rhetorical exaggeration' is a wild periphrase for lie.
I would have thought that an all powerful loving invested and intervening God would have preserved his word (scriptures) in a more durable way like Gold plates or stainless steel, I don't know. You know, a more reliable sanctify way without a single mistake.
Even if the texts were 99% in agreement, wouldn’t that still call into question the inerrancy and univocality of Isaiah?
Absolutely, the fundamentalist types cannot accept a single word is incorrect, so must fight against any differences.
Not necessarily, depending on your formulation of inerrancy and on the texts' disagreement. If God had theoretically preserved the text such that nothing important differed, but just minor words with minor meanings did differ, you're still left with a text you can call the word of god in a meaningful way.
Might be different for bigger swaths of text, bigger theological differences, or more important errors (like e.g. 1 Timothy not being written by Paul, which is something a lot of scholars think is likely)
I am not a biblical scholar; I do not have the time, patience, or mental health to fact-check every claim I've seen you make. And I had begun to have some concerns about your credibility... not due to anything you've said, but simply due to the volume of your output. That's unfair on its face, but it's been my experience that the content creators with the highest turnover tend to have the lowest quality of research. I've been fooled into believing outright lies because they were delivered with the same calm confidence that you speak with. I wasn't going to outright dismiss your claims on that alone, but it was enough to keep me on edge. This admission of error has gone a long way towards softening that edge. I salute your candor and your integrity.
It took me 4 watch throughs to understand what is going on😅. So the original 1QIsa a is nearly identical to the current masurstic text, but between the two Isaiah readings exists other Bible texts that vary from the two (like the septuigant)?
"Faithfully handed down the manuscripts"? with 400k+ variances. Basically each word has 3 variances.
I hope we see an episode of Data Over Dogma with Wes.
Interesting piece, well done.
Kudos. Above and beyond……
Respect❤
Huff also admitted to misspeak on a lot of other things on his conversation with Rogan … good on ya
What is a textual difference? If I saw one text call something red, and another call it crimson, that's a difference, but not an important one.
this guy got caught out. He also said there were significant differences, but then never produced them.
Wes also apologized to so you can’t say he wasn’t charitable he was just happy to be on the podcast
Thanks Dan
The best!
The comment Dan highlighted under the video when he found his mistake if anyone's interested :
NB: I do have a correction to make to my video. I said there was a difference from the MT in almost every verse of the book of Isaiah, but the reality is that it's only about 60-75% of the verses that have a variant of some kind. I was thinking of the fact that there are variants from a major manuscript or from other DSS Isaiah manuscripts in almost every single verse of 1QIsa-a, but I only referred to differences from MT, and in doing so I misspoke.
Hey Dan I'm keen to know your opinion on Wes placing the gospel of John in the first century? Not sure if this is something you have covered before? Keep up the good work and happy new year!