Yes, and unfortunately, it's not surprising at all. As a believer in communion with the Holy See, I would profess that the dogma of the Church is more important than what (we may think) is in the Bible, and I'm glad to see that Dr. McClellan agrees 5:15
@@MarcillaSmith Don't be too glad about that. Dan doesn't believe that elevating dogma is a good thing. His point is "most believers are more interested in dogma than what the Bible says," and that's a direct critique. If you watch enough of his videos or his podcast or livestreams, he routinely criticizes content creators who believe their dogma is more important than the actual text. The title of his podcast is "Data Over Dogma" - as in, we should submit our dogmas to whatever the data about the Bible actually tells us, even if that disrupts our dogmas.
It’s funny how people are so quick to argue that “the devil” corrupts the text by taking stuff out, but they never seem to consider that the devil could achieve just as much corruption by adding stuff in.
The game is villainizing "them." It's an old cult / high-demand religion trick to use "them" as the threat that gathers the believers (retention strategy) and gives meaning to the group.
Really tired of being told how all powerful God is and then being told the Devil is essentially equal to God engaged in an eternal supernatural battle over Homo sapiens who evolved over millennia before this God and Devil were conceived by Homo sapiens.
The oldest reactionary stance in the book: "Our enemies are weak and degenerate and thus not worthy of having power or influence or possibly even existence, and yet they are also an overwhelming existential threat to _our_ existence."
Well, everytime some event or passage works in some Christians favor, they claim it's God's handiwork, but every time something very much doesn't work for them and their beliefs, it has to be the devil, because the admission that what they believe just doesn't make sense is not one they can make. They end up turning God into this nonsense character that is all powerful yet somehow the things he makes and does gets overwritten by this other character that is supposedly much weaker than God yet this patently weaker character is responsible for basically everything bad because God just lets them do bad things to humans even though God doesn't want them to do the things they do, but instead of blipping them out of frickin existence(which for some reason he can't do apparently) he just let's them ruin his work and cause chaos and confusion over the religion, then God sends all the people who believe wrong to hell despite the devil apparently being responsible for all the confusion but instead of fixing it, he just doesn't, despite him apparently caring about and loving humanity like a father his child. 😐 All doing this does is satisfy the brains need to make things make sense only at a surface level, the moment you dig even a little bit into the belief(s), it falls apart.
You’re not going to like my religion, Toasterism, which posits that the universe is a slice of bread, the battleground between the forces of burnt and the forces of lightly toasted.
It's not surprising the extent people will go to in order to protect the dogma they are most comfortable with. Instead of it being that new meaningful evidence is revealed and people should rejoice in that, it's the work of the devil.
I've studied Aramaic over 30+ yrs and have been attacked by Christians for explaining Aramaic idioms and metaphors like "hell" and "saTan" because they take it literal. They think everything that challenges their modern theology and dogmas is "from the devil." Total ignorance.
A woman I once worked with said "God wouldn't let that happen" when I said something along the lines of there being translation errors in the bible. I wonder if she would agree or disagree with the guy claiming the devil had changed the bible.
So fascinating! At one point, he implies that because scholars base modern corrections on "Catholic" manuscripts, they are not to be trusted. Is he inclined to view everything else protestants received from Catholics with the same suspicion? That would include nearly all the basic Christian creeds. Also, the irony goes even deeper, because the version of the text that he wants to protect from scholarly correction was produced and/or passed down by Catholic scribes.
@@fnjesusfreak I didn't know that -- how interesting! Thank you for sharing. Still doesn't negate the larger point of OP: if anything and everything the Catholic church has owned or created is automatically suspect then pretty much everything Protestants have is equally suspect.
When I asked my Sunday school teacher how do we know the KJV is the correct translation of the Hebrew and Greek, he told me that the Holy Spirit protected the word of God so all men, no matter their language, could know God's truth. A few years later, I watched the missionaries funded by our church struggle with translations of just the word God in English to indigenous languages. Eventually, the entire circular explanatory scheme collapsed and my minister, a minimally trained scholar in Hebrew and Greek, was forthcoming regarding the source text and translation, yet, he was certain the discovery and analysis of the Dead Sea Scrolls would resolve the challenges preachers had to carefully work around in their ministries. A dear man who did not live to see the publication of the scrolls.
Literally nothing about the life of Jesus is verifiable. So if by "true" you mean "happened in a historically verifiable way", then no. It's not true. It is at best undetermined.
Can we at least enjoy the fact that this guy likes a book? I mean, he clearly hasn't read it, but he seems to at least like it. That's...a bit of a win for literactly...kinda. Read more than one book, folks.
This is one of my favourite of Dan's videos. It's such an interesting, and kind of funny thing that's going on here with the creator and the charts that he talks about and Dan's corrections and information he provides are informative and sort of poetic in how he points out the implications of the creator's words.
Most people seem to miss that part for some reason. What I find even more astounding is that satanists, witches, and all of the other occult folks miss that part as well.
You don't know any actual Satanists, and if you know any witches, they're not interested in your gods. Recently, the only ‘satanists’ you'll have come across are exclusively political protestors who seek to enforce the US first amendment's principle of separation of church from state, by holding up a mirror to misuse of public funds.
@@wellhellothere6347 you don't have to believe Satan is real to do his work for him. That said those aren't really the satanists I was referring to even though the point I was trying to make still directly applies to them as well. Here's a bit of scripture that might help with understanding what I am getting at. John 8:34-36 KJV [34] Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin. [35] And the servant abideth not in the house for ever: but the Son abideth ever. [36] If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.
"My fifty times re-written and translated version of the bible is more accurate than your fifty times re-written and translated version of the bible " Ok.
And Erasmus was not all that concerned with creating a critical Greek text (and it went through a number of editions after it was first published). He was much more interested in creating a critical Latin text.
I'm assuming the "Taken Away in Footnotes" is referring to some publications adding "Other ancient authorities lack X" as a footnote. Implying that even acknowledging that the verse isn't present in every manuscript is somehow "taking it away".
It's very bizarre how strongly people identify with the KJV, well over 1,000 years and 2,000 miles/3,500 km removed from the events described. And composed with limited understanding of the original contexts of those texts, and even the languages they were written in. I suspect it's a mostly U.S. phenomenon, as we have the most history of people getting really wrapped around the axle on textual peculiarities ... Plus, of course, we have the highest incidence of Dunning-Kruger Syndrome and religious scams.
Demonizing scholars trying to get to the truth? That's atill a thing? It shouldn't still be a thing and yet here we are. /Loved the "Sugar" when talking about the Rogue Tee.
I am going to make a comparison that may shock some believers. What Dan highlights is the inevitable rewriting of important texts. The author of the video puts forward such an argument that a Russian revolutionary has never participated in such an event because he doesn’t appear in the photo, newspapers, archives of the Stalinist period. Years later, historians discovered the original negative. Personal diaries of witnesses to the event which testify to the presence of this man. These historians note that yes, this man did participate in the event. Stalinism existed from the 1930s to the 1950s. Some facts were only discovered in the 1990s. Now imagine what could have happened over the centuries….
I'm not a christian but I'm into history and stuff. I think a common version for eveyone with the unoriginal additions are fine but not without some versions that are made with the original text. I read the bible closely and I understand it- that already makes me different from a lot of people who want to get some sort of shocking pro christian message or message that serves themselves (I know something "THEY" hid from "US"). These things are revealed if you just look a bit closer. Through history and the old monks who wrote bibles in the middle ages it's incredible that we have the consistency that we have now. I wish more people would show gratitude for that instead of trying to stir up outrage over details they don't understand.
That's silly. How else could someone support any other claims about the NIV without consulting it? Or, to provide a concrete example: both Dan and the person whose post he is responding to _have_ to cite the NIV to prove their assertions about what the NIV contains. This would be the case with literally any book in the world.
What does “the living God” mean? We normally distinguish between the living, the dead (the formerly living) and the never-alive-in-the-first-place. Living beings, like frogs and petunias, have physical bodies with complex and coordinated biochemical processes going on in them. But God doesn’t have such a body, so he isn’t living in the ordinary sense of the word. “Living”, then, must mean something different, but what does it mean?
Vaticanus doesn't contain quite the entire new testament text. It's missing Philemon, the pastoral epistles, the end of Hebrews and Revelation, although these latter 2 have been added in a 15th century minuscule hand.
I’m curious, does anyone know if Dan thinks the NIV is a reliable translation of the Bible to use? I sort of stay away from it, but his explanation of it sounds like he thinks it’s ok
Since the apologists say the Bible is the word of god, and we don’t have any other sources to tell us what the Devil actually said, I think he has a better case for having his position perverted 😏
He usually uses the NRSVUE on his podcast. But in this week's episode, he answers that exactly: whatever version serves your particular needs. Full stop.
It's almost as if, and hear me out, basing a religion on a partial manuscript when more, earlier pieces of that manuscript are still being discovered is kind of a bad idea
From the subject video, the creator seems to express a strong anti-catholic tenor and is likely one of the many KJV bible worshippers, who value the text in an of itself above the contents or source material. They have in their mind a magical quill floated down and penned the KJV under the direct hand of God and no sound argument will dissuade them or deflect the cognitive dissonance that provides them comfort and reinforces by providing a proof text to their own values and biases.
A part of me was disappointed Dan didn't say "Sugah" when he showed off the fit for the day. Edit: I didn't catch that he said it at the start as I was expecting it at the end.
Let's not forget, when Ruckmanites and Riplingerites go on about "Lucifer", they're making multiple errors simultaneously. "Lucifer" is a result of a cross-translation AND a misinterpretation. The term as it appears in the Vulgate is a common noun, "lucifer", used as an epithet, where it accurately translates the Hebrew, but in the KJV, it merely shows that the translators occasionally abandoned the Hebrew for the Latin. Additionally, that passage is not and never was talking about the devil. It is referring to the king of Babylon, and the description is a mocking reference to the Tower of Babel story. This is clear as day if you read the verses in their proper context. Ruckmanites and Riplingerites abandon the actual text of the Bible, and make the KJV the new standard. Whether it be by positing a process of purification, as Riplinger did, or complete reinspiration, as Ruckman did, they propose that the real Bible was either lost or nonexistent for 1500 years, until God reinspired it in 1611.
I may be even less of a scholar than the creator of the video you just critiqued, but it seems to me that the "living word" is strictly oral, and once it's written down, it stops being living. Is this correct?
The Bible actually makes more sense if the Devil tampered with the bible. Cuz if the devil didn't.....that would make god a horrible storyteller and teacher of morals.
However Jeremiah 8:8 King James Version 8 How do ye say, We are wise, and the law of the Lord is with us? Lo, certainly in vain made he it; the pen of the scribes is in vain.
"What the authors originally wrote" is not a good criterion for a translation of a community edited text like the Bible. The scribes that fixed errors and added stories are just as important as the first person who composed the story. So it is a mistake to take out passages just because they weren't there originally, you should instead footnote those passages to indicate that they were not there originally.
It gets even more complex when you realize that many OT books never were "written" originally - they were spoken. Hebrew as a written language didn't even exist until 300-500 years after Moses lived, sometime around 1100-1000 BC. The history in the Genesis, for example, therefore existed for centuries as an oral telling of events loooooong before it was recorded in written form. And as best as we know, the vast majority of the OT wasn't recorded until 700 to 600 BC, about the time of the Babylonian Exile. So there were really no original written forms of many of the OT books at the time the language implies that the stories occurred. So if we're going to be honest, we have to come to terms with the fact that a lot of the Hebrew Bible / Old Testament was written by people who were writing down very very old stories as if they were original writings by the people named as the authors. And this in particular means that most of the prophecies were written AFTER the events they purport to be predicting.
@@annaclarafenyo8185 probably true. But I think if we're going to have a productive discussion with people, we have to let them believe in a literal Moses, and then approach the realistic issues a bit more gradually. Understanding that "Moses" whoever he was couldn't possibly have "written" anything in Hebrew is a starting point, at least, even if it ignores a bigger question about the literal historicity of Bible stories.
@@Brandon_SoMD Taking the Bible literally as history is a direct attack on religion, making it absurd and childish. This type of attack is used by powerful people to remove the sting of religious oversight, because saying "This is nonsense" didn't work. So they invented a new line of attack: it's not nonsense! It's all literally true! This is like saying that there really was a fox that Aesop saw jumping up and down trying to eat some grapes. Not only isn't it true, it would detract from the story, because a true story carries no moral lesson.
According to your reasoning, then the Bible is also corrupted, as it has been touched by human hands. Also, knowledge is achieved by reading books written by actual scholars and experts. Oh, and the Bible is also a book, so... BTW, no one here is claiming to be perfect or all-knowing, so your point is ridiculous. And, why are you here?
Okay, the Devil has perverted the Word of God. Now what? Must I believe you that you are not also doing the Devil's work? Sowing Doubt only yields more Doubt.
I would guess that "taken away in footnotes" means that it had been taken out of the main text, but still added in the footnotes, and now it has been eliminated even in the footnotes. Just guessing.
What really needs to be proven, as the amount of lost people following you will show, is that the scriptures are intact and can be backed up with facts and evidence.
Yes, we do. If you go in line and do a little research for yourself, you will find that the scriptures can be adequately traced to the writers. just like many other ancient writings. The same old cliches about the Bible and God are only man made excuses for not believing in God. But ignorance is not bliss. I pray you find the desire within yourself to want to know God, and I think you already do. For if you don’t believe somewhat, why are you even bothered to answer posts like this one? Something is driving you to be here, whether you will admit it to yourself or not. If you really didn’t care, you would not even be bothered by posts like this.
@mdelaney9008 "ignorance is not bliss". Umm, you need to educate yourself then. This channel is a good place to start. What does "the scriptures are intact" even mean? That's not a coherent thought.
I hate people making vids like those. Just a bunch of info that you need to dedicate time to easily debunk but can cause damage to those who dont have time or knowledge.
Explain. What’s fake in what Dan says? How is a discussion of the scholarly research that has attempted to reconstruct the original texts using multiple manuscripts “word salad?”
@@cedarwaxwing3509These fellas usually don’t bother explaining themselves, they’re likely trolls. Folks who actually take issue with Dan’s content will at least acknowledge the scholarship, even if they don’t agree with the conclusions drawn from it
