The guy brings up a good question you might have if you only watch some of Dan's videos: "How can the Bible mean ____ if it has no inherent meaning?" However, instead of politely asking Dan to clarify this apparent contradiction, he goes on an accusatory rant based on what he assumes Dan is doing. He's obviously not communicating in good faith.
This is a simple problem I see all the time: you have to define a be very clear as to the meaning of "inherent meaning." They think "hey, the Bible means the same thing as when I was a kid, and to grandma, it must have some permanent meaning!" Anyone in an academic setting has no trouble with it - on the street? Big trouble.
If you read Dan's book, YHWH's Divine Images, he goes into a very lengthy preface on how to read his book, the terms he uses, the definitions, almost to the point of redundancy, even having a glossary at the start for certain acronyms. In Bart Ehrman's book, Misquoting Jesus, he explains that it is very difficult to reconstruct what the texts could have originally meant because of copyist errors and intentional changes (that were seen to be intentional by other copyists!). It also cannot be ruled out that our earliest surviving manuscripts were not changed as well, seeing as there is a time gap between what the earliest manuscript is and what we have. He expresses the frustration in trying to reconstruct it, saying that if it is so difficult, it would be easy not to bother with it at all. "All models are wrong. But some are useful." We can never be sure, but that shouldn't stop us from trying. Edit: Apparently the full quote is: "Remember that all models are wrong; the practical question is how wrong do they have to be to not be useful." which can have a different meaning altogether.
He doesn't want morons in the year 2500 getting on Future TikTok and bastardizing his writing to support like genocide of Martians or something. Gotta spell it out for people so there's no confusion.
There are a lot of Bible commentators with PhD,s who also do not agree with Dan. So apperantley scholarship is not important. Or only for Dan and his followers.
@@Bible-Christian- Please list all current PhD biblical scholars who disagree with Dan on a fundamental level, as well as what those disagreements are.
@@Bible-Christian There are people who'd like to shift the consensus (for instance Richard Carrier would like everyone to believe Jesus wasn't a historical person) and therefore will also differ from the information Dan is communicating. But until they've persuaded their peers through academic means, we shouldn't be persuaded as non-scholars through argumentative or rhetorical means. Grifters publish on social media; scholars publish in academic journals.
@stefanb6539 I wouldn't say "better," but "verifiable." Scholars look at whatever data is available to best construct the context in which the text is produced in order to hypothesize the authorial intent and audience reception. If later audiences reinterpret the text, they actually turn the text into a new primary source of their own time. The scholarly approach is one that strives to identify these contexts and lay out the reasoning and evidence, so other scholars can check their work and build on/refute it. So, when people say "what the Bible means," we need to look at how they're arguing that. Words in translation stripped of context reveal 21st-century values, fears, understandings, etc., but they say nothing about the Bible. Only how people use it, or "negotiate" with it. If your goal is to create meaning and give an audience something to consider, that's totally fine! We do that with literature all the time. But if you're claiming your interpretation is a reflection of what they thought then (biblical peoples and authors), then you'd better have proof. That's what scholars look at and debate.
I think the real reason the Bible has no inherent meaning, is because it is not one book, but a collection of books arbitrary joined up in one book. It is a collection of books written by different authors during different centuries in different languages, of which we don't even have the original manuscripts, that contradict each other all the time. It is impossible for such kind of literature to have an "inherent" meaning.
This is close to the point but not quite. No literature has any inherent meaning, only the meaning we assign it. The word "dog" doesn't inherently mean a four-legged, furry animal, it only means that because we as a society and culture all agree that's what it means. The meaning of words and phrases can change from place to place and time to time and if they had inherent meaning they wouldn't change, they would just be. And so we can assign meaning to a text that suits our values and biases or we can try to reconstruct how a text would have been understood by its original audience and the only reason we can choose what meaning to assign at all is because there is no inherent meaning, only the meaning we choose to assign.
To even speak of "the Bible" is ambiguous. I always point out that there is no one such thing as "the Bible". There have been multiple Christian bibles/canons throughout history, and none of them match each other nor has one ever been demonstrated to be authoritative. And btw, I'm speaking of different versions with differing content and not translations. Christians historically can not even agree on what is actually scripture. This is demonstrable as nearly every version is extant. Beyond that, any given version has no inherent meaning, as was pointed out. These are simply amalgamations of texts that we can not even know with absolute certainty what the originals actually said in the first place. The first hurdle can not be crossed to even BEGIN to claim an inherent meaning. The whole "inherent meaning" argument is an exercise in futility.
@@paddyodriscoll8648close in the sense that is asking questions and critical thinking, which is a step many don't even do. He was still too bias to make good use of critical thinking.
I'm a conservative Christian. I have a degree in the Bible and years of studying it. I appreciate the explanation that Dan provides here of his scholarly endeavors. I do not always agree with his conclusions, but i think education demands consideration of all the best information in each area of study. Finally, i think disagreement with respect is the right way.
I agree that he does seem a bit angry. Kind of like someone upset that he doesn't understand something completely but is certain it is not in accord with his views on a subject.
There are other alternatives to numbing with induced psychosis, and damaging your brain and lungs in the process. How we treat our brain and body ultimately catches up with us sooner, or later. Maybe try self caring, and addressing issues instead. Your life is valuable, too.
It bothers me when someone has a useful concept to explain and rather than listening and comprehending, they attack it with stickman arguments. To be fair, the statement, "The Bible has no inherent meaning" is click bait, but this response takes the statement and imagines a stickman no unbiased person would ever think Dan means.
The criticism of Dan is coming from a place of needing to justify his dogmatic imposition of meaning on the bible. If Dan is only doing another version of what he's doing, then he's completely justified in his dogma. He feels threatened that his particular religious dogma might be incorrect, and he's defensive.
This is a common refrain among the dogmatically religious. They'll try to paint a preference for data and scientific method as a one-to-one with religion. They'll equate it to worship specifically to try and get it on equal ground with their blind faith. This false equivalence is rampant among the religious and apologists. It doesn't matter that the scientific method has given us modern medicine, cell phones, rockets, and atomic weapons. It only matters that you, as an individual who is not a scientist, has "faith" in the scientists you don't understand, just like they have "faith" in a God they don't understand. It's an insidious tactic I've yet to fully deflect because it involves breaking down first principles and that's a metaphysical argument that gets us nowhere.
He’s incapable of doubt, which is a way of saying that fear has forced his doubts far below the surface of his conscious mind. And then he mistakes his lack of doubt (deeply buried doubts) with faith. Faith without doubt is meaningless.
This is a very important point. I totally see where this guy is coming from. Tbh, I have struggled with the way Dan talks about “meaning” and “definitions”. So, I appreciate Dan taking time to address this perspective despite its passive aggressive presentation.
Since I found Dan on TikTok and other platforms I have learned so incredibly much about the bible and religion in general. I am extremely impressed by Dans ability to view everything from an academic view and let his own religion affect his view as little as possible. As Dan says, no one is perfect, we're all just human. I do not see it as any form of betrayal to his faith or any such thing. Instead I see Dan being strong enough to apply critical thinking to his view of the bible and religion without it interfering with his own religious aspect. Just as Georges Lemaître Dan is able to have an academic and scientific observation of the bible without his religion interfering with his assessment. This is in my opinion very impressive.
Dan is applying the principle of ever and NEVER COMING TO THE TRUTH. But he justifies that by saying there is no truth that can be known. His ball is in the weeds, but instead of hitting toward the hole he just hits it. Good luck with that.
If writing has an inherent meaning, we wouldn't have to figure out how we use words in modern English that have opposite meanings based on the culture around them and the time frame used. "To cleave" is pretty much now only used to represent "to split", but it also means "to join", particularly in older writings. If I am talking about a slasher movie, "cleaving" something is probably splitting it, but someone who chooses to ignore the context might easily ask why the killer is fusing two people together. Hellraiser:Bloodlines not withstanding.
If cleave means to join, how can you cleave something in twain?!?! You can't, therefore, it doesn't make any sense, therefore, you're wrong! Checkmate language descriptivists! ...unless you start with four things...oh no, my world is falling apart!
The idea isn't about the level of work you have to put in. The idea is about what the words are made of. Text is "just" ink on a page or pixels on a screen. Speech is "just" vibrations in the air. The physical things that symbols are made of simply _are_, independent of any meaning we ascribe to them, and thus do not contain any meaning within themselves. However, symbols like text and speech are one of the only means we have to reliably express the thoughts and meanings inside our heads with other people, so that's what we use, and we simply have to hope that the meanings our symbols generate in someone else's head are the same as the meanings we were thinking of as we made the symbols. If you are part of the same cultural context as the person creating those pixels or those sound waves, then you're very likely to understand what the speaker was thinking as they produced those pixels or sounds, but misunderstandings still occur when different meanings are taken from the symbols, and if the original speaker isn't there to correct you, there isn't any way to know for sure what they originally meant to say. In summary: the physical bits that symbols are made of do not have any intrinsic meaning, but they're the only way we can try to get other people to think of the same meanings we're thinking of.
It's really hard to listen to these guys who have never been presented with real scholarship in their life, so they don't understand it, but now they want to mouth off and come after you. You are very patient and gracious in your tone with these responses.
I get exactly how he can see it like that. You have to learn that language changes, in order for it to have an inherent meaning it would have to never change and be understood, without being taught, what it means.
Also that Dan often refers to the meaning probably intended by the author, which is different than a meaning inherent to the text. So "there's no inherent meaning here's what the meaning is" was more often "there's no inherent meaning here's what the intended meaning at the time probably is."
It's very hard to see data when your identity is the dogma. But eventually, the fish jumps out of the water and realizes, oh, I live in a lake. And there's a reality outside of the lake. Oh.
It reminds me of a time in China during the cultural exchanges of the Nixon administration when a group of student scholars were being serve collard greens and one of the students, out of culinary delight, exclaimed, "These greens is bad!" The Chinese were so upset they had failed to demonstrate the roots of home style cooking until the ambassador explained the American students had given the chef an A++ on his expertise.
Dan's posts aren't about what the text means; they're about what the text says. It's up to the person to engage in negotiation with the text to determine its meaning for them.
That last word is where some of us disagree. For me, and I think for most secular scholars, the point is to determine what the text most likely mean to the author. This reminds me of the story of a young girl new to the USA and still learning English. She thinks the teachings is riding her too hard about her academic progress and says the teacher is molesting her. To most people who read it, it meant the teacher was touching her sexually. But she he was bothering her. _Molestar_ in Spanish Molest in English are false cognates, but the girl thought they were true cognates. To understand her text, you need to understand her languages and her (lack of) progress in English.
@@scienceexplains302 Fair point. I was referring to current meaning to the reader, but yes, Dan also raises this point in the vid about trying to determine what the text meant to the original author.
I think it’s worth noting that the academic study doesn’t just cover the original authors’ intentions, but how and why interpretations have changed over time in post biblical contexts. We can trace why modern dogmatists believe what they do, and they tend not to like having that pointed out.
From a theist, although not useful to specify what kind. You are doing an outstanding job, both in your reasoning and presentation. An open minded person would not be upset with you even if he-she disagreed with you on some points, usually small points. Reasonable people greatly appreciate you. Some texts, in some portions, do tend toward a fairly clear meaning. Good critics start there, be honest about how firm the base is, and then go on to use the base and reasoning to help elucidate less-clear portions. That is what you do. You stress the indeterminacy of most portions that are the subjects of your videos because often that is what is most in contention and where most work needs to be done. Also good. In stressing the areas of considerable indeterminacy, it can seem as if you are saying all the text, and all evidence that might bear on the text, is equally wishy-washy, and so anybody can say whatever he-she wishes to say about any portion. One can then use what one has declared (snuck in) about this portion to validate anything you wish to say about all other portions. That is what partisans do. That is what your critic accused you of doing. That is what you do NOT do. You go from more-confident portions to help with less-confident portions, but in the good way, not in any bad way. See, some people do get it. Keep up the good work, both in reasoning and education. Thanks. Good luck. Mike
Thumbs up from a staunch atheist. Ironically the creationist version of these critics do exactly what they accuse DanMcC of: "it's just a matter of interpreting the data!" when it comes to eg fossils.
I guess Dan is saying that a text is just ink on a page, but when we read it we interpret it…it doesn’t have meaning until there is a reader. The original writer had something in mind and we try to figure out what he had in mind from the ink on the page. Trying to restate Dan’s argument to assign meaning to it and approximate what he was trying to say.
I wouldn’t go so far as to paint the guy with the Dunning Kruger brush. There’s a difference between lacking intelligence and having a difficult time being objective. I think it’s fair to say that the majority of fervent believers have been deeply indoctrinated into their belief. So much so that it becomes the foundation of their sense of reality and security. They focus on it as the main thing that they can be sure of in the world. Letting go of all that is scary. It also means losing a connection to the people who have indoctrinated you. People who have been central to your support system. It’s natural to defend all that.
It's like science. It's the best good faith estimate based upon a clear reading of the facts that you have at any point in time. We do know how dogmatic religious people despise science and rationality.
I doubt this guy is sincerely trying understand Dan's approach. But I do think people who are new to the channel could be forgiven for asking these kinds of questions, and I would struggle a bit to give a clear answer. An analogy that came to mind is: it's like Descartes saying the only thing we can really know is "I think therefore I am" and everything else we think we know could be an illusion. But then Descartes goes on to practice an early version of the scientific method. He starts by admitting we can't know much of anything, and then develops the best method he can think of to make sense of the world we find ourselves in. It sounds like a contradiction, but it's really just epistemological humility, followed by a sense of duty to get as close to the truth as possible given our limitations. It's not very satisfying for people with a strong cognitive need for closure and certainty, but it's the best a sincere truth seeker can reasonably hope for.
I wonder if it would help people understand if Dan added the word "single" making the statement: "Words, including those in the Bible, have no single inherent meaning" He could add, "there are a wide variety of possible meanings... And each possibility falls somewhere in a range of probability, high or low, of accurately reflecting the original authors intended meaning " Now, If the goal is to understand the actual ideas in the mind of the original author, well that is impossible to figure out with certainty. That is the inherent meaning that is lost to us. Because people are not perfect at choosing words that clearly convey the thoughts in their minds. And because the listener is not perfect at extracting the same meaning that was intended by the speaker's imperfectly chosen words. Anyone who is married can attest to this. But we can develop methods that likely get us closer to the mind of the original author and his intended audience.
We need debates between people like Dan McClellan and peoole who are more focused on the devotional side of bible, for eg. Tim Mackie ( an another promising guy)
Amazing that 2000 years after the claimed events, poeple are still argueing over the meaning of the supposedly inerrant yet apparently unintelligible word of a god.
I do think the phase "no text has inherent meaning" is a confusing way to say that text is just a bunch of symbols that we as people assign meaning to. I think when you talk about inherent meaning some people interpret that as the original authors intended meaning and that's where the confusion here has arisen.
Great video. I think your work is very important to this day and age. If anything, you are getting a lot of people talking about the bible and such things. I support your efforts even if I disagree with some of your points. I think it's awesome that your material is sparking so much interest in the biblical narrative. Minds need to be challenged, and I think you are creating an arena perfectly. I used to read these books when I was in middle school called, "point and counter-point". On any subject was one part claim, one part counter claim, no bias towards any one side. The reader was to make up their own mind. Philosophers battle for minds, without the battle it would just be preaching.
I think this discussion would be helped by clarifying whether you think texts had an inherent meaning to their original audiences or whether the intention of authors is always lost to readers.
Even though I think this methodology is contradictory and fundamentally just nonsensical. I appreciate that you take the time to clarify your position, and presented it in a concise and easy to understand way.
I sometimes question consensus. I've been around enough academics to realize that sometimes consensus is based in lazy conformity. What is needed is attempt to see if the conclusion flows out of rigorous interactions of a full range of argumentation. Some of the consensus may be rooted in getting along with peers and fear of what could be associated with a group of scholars that don't conform to what the "elites" "properly" conclude. What is needed is direct interaction with a fuller range of interpretations to discover what demonstrates better argumentation having looked at the data. This applies to progressives, fundamentalists, and centrists, etc.
It is as if the other guy won't give himself the liberty to allow the text to "minister" to him. He wants to be dogma taught and have people agree with him, rather than allowing other points of view to expand his thinking and help him grow. So sad... But he is young. I was like that too during my "I know it all" phase. Now I would much rather be happy, than right 🙂
I had similar criticisms for a while, but I think a lot of this just has to do with semantics and shorthand. People unfamiliar with the field of linguistics have difficulty contextualizing claims in the field.
Are there examples in Biblical scholarship where there is not yet a scholarly consensus? Where, say, half of scholars think one thing and the other half think another? Or cases where we don’t have enough info to figure out what a passage meant to the original authors or audience? Might make an interesting video.
MUAhahahaha! @"..and a seatbelt." LOOOVE you're subtle, sardonic bits of humor in response to those practicing #IGNORANCEbyCHOICE re "demonic tees" BS Sir Dan! #JustSayin ;]]
It's crazy how the academic consensus on Biblical scholarship has bent the same exact way as the academic consensus on political & social issues. What a coincidence!
This is why he appeals to leftist and atheist. “I’m right because all the other people that attended the same liberal colleges as me agree!” His followers are just as cringe.
The creator is making a fallacy of equivocation. _What the Bible "inherently means"_ vs _what specific portions of the text were intended to mean_ are different things, and attempting to conflate the two different contexts of meaning as being the same thing is a fallacy. One is a question of the supposedly _necessary_ theology or lesson or message you supposedly _must_ extract from it when reading it overall (the "inherent meaning of the Bible"), and the other is what the author of any particular portion of it is attempting to communicate. One is about the significance to you as a person which is something the reader constructs for themselves (but often tries to claim as being the "objective truth" of the text), the other is about just what the author probably meant at the time they wrote it. This is a common trick apologists play to try to coerce you into accepting unstated premises that they want you to also use as premises, so they can get you to agree to their specific theology. That's why at the end his complaint is that when Dan does the latter, it conflicts with his own construction of the former. He wants us to agree that the meaning _he_ has constructed for the Bible overall - the implications of his particular framework for "objective truth" as he sees it - must be adhered to and complied with - because he has constructed that "objective truth" as being authoritative for us in general - but Dan's attempts to put together what the authors probably meant by their individual portions of the text conflicts with that attempt because they did not agree with each other and also _were just people._ And he doesn't like that.
Respectfully, I disagree. Based on what Dan said and my awareness of the nature of the Bible, it in fact appears that the reverse of what you've said is true. How? Because as far as the objective theology of the Church that put the Bible together, as inspired by the Holy Spirit, the Bible is filled with meaning (several different levels of it) and is also indicative of the nature of Jesus Christ. The objective truth of the Bible exists already and by Dan's own admission he is "reconstructing." If this were some other book, it would make more sense. But it's not. He is attempting to reconstruct what has already been constructed without paying enough mind (my perception from having watched this video) to the actual constructors or better said Constructor, because if he were to pay them more mind, sentences like "the Bible has no meaning" would not be thought or said. Sort of the same way we don't reconstruct the meaning of a hexagonal sphere to be a hexagon, but at the same time we can understand if someone decides to go along that path because they do have the ability and free will to, from a certain point of view and may help others discover the truth in their attempt. This all being said, I respect scholarship (especially Biblical scholarship) and I realize we may not all always intend to use what may feel to me as off-putting words to describe what we intend to bring as a gift to others. I wish Dan the best in his scholarship and discovering the truth, especially through the wisdom of the Holy Spirit, who was given by Jesus to Christians as a gift to understand Him in the texts that are our human and best attempt at representing Him. I recommend reading the first chapter of Genesis, the first chapter of John, the 14th chapter of John, and the 22nd chapter of Revelation multiple times to better understand my statements. I hope this helps and I mean it sincerely, not with any offense. I wish you a great day. www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2014&version=NABRE
The theology of the Church that put the Bible together wasn't objective either. This assertion of yours is a fine example of the evidence less assumptions apologists make.
@@scholasticaokoye7474 That is definitely something someone who has already decided that the Bible has a specific objective meaning _before_ reading it would think. Which church _exactly_ is it that has the "objective theology"? All of them? That can't be, because they disagree on a bunch of things and always have. A specific one? Which one? And you determined it was that one how?
@@marknieuweboer8099 I know what you mean by that it wasn't objective. The best way for me to describe how I understand is by analogy. I would think of the way our different journalists describe what happens in the world and how all of them have different biases but in the best of circumstances, maybe there's video, audio, archaeological evidence of what they are describing. From an objective standpoint, what they are describing already exists and there is an objective series of events that did actually occur, but their description of the events, because of their nature will be subjective in some way, even with the check and balance of video, audio, picture, archaeological, etc. evidence. But that element subjectivity that is supposed to be regulated by others but may not always be regulated in the most ethical or objective way does not mean that the objective truth didn't exist or happen.
Hi Dan, I really like your videos and they really do break down the barrier between linguistics used in the original scriptures and the interpretation that modern people use and how it can be seen as misinterpretations. I have a question if you don’t mind . Muslims believe that the Prophet Muhammad is prophesies in the Bible, and they use verses to adhere to their argument whereas Christians refer to these prophecies as Jesus. Which is true or false? Thank you
Again it's a misunderstanding of how science works. The point of the scientific method, and it's adjunct rules, is that everyone has bias. That is why you look for academic consensus based on evidence. If you can convince every other expert, with their separate and often irreconciliable biases, that you are correct, based on facts then your point is more likely to be true. When you write a thesis, that is exactly what you have to do.
Dan could do a video where he shows that he has biases, or projected meanings on the Bible that is NOT the academic consensus. Dan is active LDS, if I'm not mistaken. That means he probably has a handful of things he believes about the Bible that contradicts the academic consensus. For instance, Dan has shown in MANY videos that Satan is an invention of early Christianity to address some problems in Jewish theology. Mormons believe that Satan is a really, really early idea that Adam, Enoch Noah would have been keenly tuned into. Moreover, Mormons believe that Moses had a 1-on-1 with Satan as part of his path to God (Moses is not a historical figure). Does Dan share a belief in this doctrine with Mormon theology? I dunno. But it would be an interesting way for him to demonstrate that his videos are a genuine attempt to show the academic consensus even against his personal bias.
Dan, I get you and I agree with you. But I can't agree that "no inherent meaning" is a useful or helpful label for that view. It implies the text has no meaning at all and never has, not even one inherent to its original author and his readers in their context, which is of course absurd. But thats what people naturally leap to when you use that phrase. Better would be "no one exact meaning on everything, held everywhere throughout". Or if thats too many words, then "no overarching meaning" or "no one unified meaning".
The Bible is words written down and sent forward in time. All written words get their meaning not from the author, but from what the reader understands. What the author meant, and exactly what it meant to him is forever lost. The closest we can come is to try to understand the writer and the culture, figure out what he meant to convey and then render that into an understanding to us that approximates what the writer was attempting to say. The words themselves mean little.
I must say, I am generally a fan of McClellan's work, but these are valid criticisms, and I don't see that McClellan really refutes them. He refutes meaning, but still works at an approximation of an ideal meaning. He validates his favorite meaning by demonstrating the amount of workmanship and scholarship that went into it, but even this validation is ultimately arbitrary. If the text has no meaning, why is the meaning that was implied by the original authors and/or understood by the original audience in any way superior to a naive or even dogmatic meaning from anyone fulfilling their modern needs? Just because it takes more work to approximate it? Is this then an endurance sport? What else is the inherent value of reconstructing an originalist reading?
One day, Dan is just finally gonna lose it and challenge someone to a boxing match, LOL (For a sec, I thought Dan was responding to himself...maybe he should go all in with that next April 1st!)
The apologue uses a consequence of his belief in “objective morality.” To silence any dissonant voice, simply pretend to have objective truth. Your morality is true and therefore superior because it is based on the objectivity of God. This fallacy works very well with the (very subjective) reading of the Bible as resting on an objective “truth/moral/reading”. All these presuppositionalist apologists ignore what intersubjectivity means.
We can easily misunderstand what someone means by their words, but that is not all. We can't even be sure the author is perfectly able to put into words what they mean. :D And nobody can always imagine how someone else might misunderstand them. "Text has no inherent meaning" sounds awfully close to "author didn't mean anything when writing, it's all just dadaism", which of course can't be true. Author obviously often has something specific in mind when writing. But humans are not good at putting things into words, like how are you feeling. Word meanings change. Culture changes. People invent new meaninga to old texts. Sayings change, like blood being thicker than water means the opposite now.
I feel like this original poster to which Dan responded was just repeating himself. He was not really saying anything different. Just the say accusation couched in different clothes.
The claim that there's no "inherent" or fundamentally cohesive meaning to the biblical text is a claim that impugns the authority's hermeneutical object, the textual-contextual lens through which we peer to see, read, interpret, and understand the text. Essentially, your "hermeneutical object" is the "eye" to which Jesus alludes as either being "single" or "jaded" (Matthew 6:22-23). Whereby, if your "eye" is single, if the object that is fundamental to our hermeneutics suffers a disciplined moral and spiritual consistency, then the "body," our understanding, finds itself bathed in the glorious light that reveals the inherent meanings within Scripture. However, if our "eye" is jaded, the appropriate analog would be a cracked lens, then our "eye" is in a condition that impedes the divine light, the inherent meaning of Scripture, from entering the body. This "cracked lens" is our present state. It has been our present state since Paul, as evidenced in his writings. But Paul did not arrive at this moment by his own devices. In the 10th chapter of the book of Ezra, Ezra establishes the cultural, moral, social, political, and religious influences that emerge to shape and mold the hermeneutical object of which we, too, are its inheritors. It is this antecedent darkness that is our light. How we surmise what Ezra affects in Exra 10:1-17 is that the "state" or temple emerges as the centerpiece of our hermeneutics. You bear witness to the devastating, if not cataclysmic, results of having "the state" presiding as the object of our hermeneutics because there is no moral delimiter to the effecting, settling, and establishing a "state." Ezra demonstrates this in his command that the Jewish men separate themselves from their foreign wives and children. Doing so, though he employs God to veil his evil, Ezra elevates the concerns of the temple above the union of "male and female." It's necessary to give signification to the union of "male and female" because it is in this pillared image that we affect God's image (Genesis 1:26-28). And so, given what Ezra commits to us in the 10th chapter of Ezra, wherein Ezra establishes the central role of "the state" within our hermeneutics, apart from what we surmise as God's image (Genesis 1:26-28). We have the evidence of two competing objects for our hermeneutics: the pillared image of "male and female," which opens us to witnessing the inherent meanings laden in Scripture, apart from "the state," which denies us access to the same. We are of the latter model.
Exodus 22:29 says all firstborns are to be given to God just like firstborn sheep and cattle. That’s a reference to sacrifice. Exodus 13 and 34 are later literary layers that add a notion of redemption that is entirely absent from the Covenant Code, which is the earliest legislation in the Hebrew Bible.
Seeing the difference between inherent meaning and derived meaning is a rather important component of literacy. Being an atheist, I'm annoyed by the aggressor here, as much as I'm annoyed by folks' lack of literacy with modern fiction. A fairy tale has so innate meaning - you can derive an understanding not to go into the woods and talk to strangers, or you can derive an understanding that a red hood is going to get your grandmothed killed. One of these is "more correct" an understanding.
The presenter in the video you're responding to accuses you of sophistry, but actually, his rhetorical techniques and lines of contradictory reasoning far more resemble what you'd expect from sophistry (like actual historical sophistry).
You just need to consume more energy drinks and incorporate more spastic hand and camera movements. And then slowly work up to using odd background music.
Words have no inherent meaning. People may mean something when they use a word but that meaning is not always faithfully and accurately transmitted by that word over the centuries and through different languages and cultural contexts. (heck, in the modern day people misunderstand what someone stood right in front of them is trying to say despite hearing the exact words spoken) It's not that there is no intended meaning from the author, it's that such a meaning cannot be transmitted through the word alone and must be worked out as best as possible through the scientific method. To give an example, when Chaucer uses the word "nyce" he is not intending to mean what we would interpret the word "nice" to mean. What he is intending to mean is something closer what we would understand "foolish" to mean. And, while we can't know that from the word alone, we can work it out by using both the context in which the word is found in Chaucer's writings but also the wider written record from the time that taken together demonstrates the changing use of the word.
So it’s like art, right? Where the artist has an intended meaning/purpose, and the audience has an impression of the art, and those things might not line up (or, by definition, won’t perfectly line up) because art is an imperfect medium. And the art itself doesn’t carry the meaning; it’s just pigment on canvas. We have the idea that language IS a perfect medium, but there can never be 100% transfer of meaning between individuals, much less between individuals separated by language, culture, distance, and 2,000 years.
The guys criticism was ok but def didn’t need to be ranting about it lol 😂 My thing is The literature is clearly influenced by older literature It’s fact with what we know now And it’s not just an assumption We find older texts that clearly influenced the Bible I guess you could argue it’s not a fact But if it was any other literature as in literature in the last hundred years It would be considered plagiarism My criticism is why we don’t read those and study those texts as well It’s like we are watching last season of show with just some re caps We are missing multiple seasons The multiple seasons we are missing Is Greek/Roman methology, Egyptian texts, cuneiform tablets, Dead Sea scrolls I’m confident in my belief from reading these texts…which I haven’t even fully read Plus my rabbit holes I always go down from studying these texts That I know or at least have really good idea to what was going on Any biblical scholar that hasn’t read the lost book of Enki Needs to read that It says it was written by master Scribe Endubsar 17 days of the 2nd month on the 7th year after the great calamity, and is clearly referring to the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah
To add Anything can be argued But I am confident I can argue my belief better and why believe what I believe and I’m not guessing We can’t know everything But I feel I know more You want the stance that I challenge myself and challenge others If you can’t do that Then way more studying has to be done And without reading other texts we are only getting small piece of puzzle
Ahem...is this on? Meaning. We're talking the Bible. The meaning of the Bible has been attributed to divine inspiration ever since it's inception. There is no debate on any issue regarding divine inspiration. The meaning or the bottom line is non-negotiable and it is defined by the people claiming to be deriving the meaning through divine inspiration or the people before them who they recognize as having been lead by the divine. How the text came to be and what it meant to the authors or anyone else has nothing to do with anything. Then there are the rest of us who are talking about meaning outside the realm of divine inspiration. The meaning to the authors and the people at the time. How the texts came to be and how they were put together. The above description of the two camps is not indicative of theist versus atheist or religious versus non-religious or Christian versus non-Christian. There are Christians who have been opposed to authoritative interpretation of the Bible based on divine inspiration since the 1600's. And we're not talking just some outliers. We're talking one of the original American colonies that became a state. We're talking published writings in England that were prevalent in Europe in the 1600's that had major influence on men like John Locke who are referenced as being a part of the Enlightenment. From what I gather, it is one of the very few things I take issue with Dan on. The Enlightenment was spurred from within Christianity more than Dan alludes to. I agree with Dan that it wasn't as much as apologists like to say and I would also point out they don't have anything to do with the real people who had the effect because those type Christians are something they don't want to give any attention to. But neither do the people on the other side of things. The fact does damage to both camps.
Communication is two sided. The meaning the speaker or writer intends and the meaning the listener or reader gathers and those can be very different things. If God is omnipotent and wishes something to be, it will be. If he wishes to communicate a message to everyone, it will be communicated and received without misunderstanding by everyone. Yet we have the bible which few can agree on its message consistently. Which means either the bible isn't the message of God or he intended for confusion in its interpretation. Perhaps God is not omnipotent then or he is omnipotent and purposely isn't communicating clearly so most of mankind is clueless or has to figure it out by himself. Then someone will bring up faith but thats often faith in men like Paul or the OT writers. Hinduism, Islam, and insert religion all require faith in the speaker or writer not in God.
Maybe instead of saying "the bible has no inherent meaning" maybe saying "we're not 100% sure about what it is saying". Cuz the different texts were written for and with a purpose, even if we don't understand it the way the authors and listeners did back then
5:01 "You're actually ignoring the meaning of the Bible in its fullness..." Does this guy really think _he_ knows the _"the meaning"_ of all 73 books of the Bible?
@@HoneyTone-TheSearchContinues "You’re assuming he’s Catholic? Why?" I'm not assuming Catholicism _in itself._ For sake of conversation, I _AM_ willing to presuppose that the Bible was correct and inerrant for well over 1,000 years before someone came along and tore 7 books out of the Bible. Or did the Bible _not_ have meaning for all those centuries?
The king of Tyre was wiser than Daniel and in the Garden of Eden but, it was a different Eden??? Was it a different Daniel too? I think the author was speaking about Adam, the Christ, when he wields the fiery sword and judges the world. The Father is greater than I. Yahweh judged the heavens themselves and became the snake. Adam becomes the Lawless One. Adam is a third-party to this world and these heavens. His kingdom is forever peaceful. Adam had a university of trees to learn from. Further, Adam was not deceived. Yahweh goes about in a tent of cloth. Adam was clothed from the nakedness of the day of judgment. They are with you always, until the end of the ages. Adam is Transfigured and revealed to be the Christ. The Ancient Serpent of Old is Transfigured and revealed to be the Ancient One of Days having his feet washed by Adam. You have to put a story behind the Transfiguration. A kingdom was prepared for Yahweh at the foundation of the world. No one comes to it except through Adam. Adam ascends beyond the heavens and it looks like he is taking Yahweh with him. Adam is the word of the will of Yahweh, the lamp of the light of Yahweh, and the image of the substance of Yahweh.
Dude doesn't understand that sign and signified are different things, that languages are essentially social agreements in communities that "these sounds or inages mean these things" and those outside that agreement will not find the meaning within them. It cannot be inherent if one must translate.
Meaning is an emergent property, not an inherent one. What do I mean by that? To understand evolutionary biology, such as understanding how natural selection works. You need to drop the assumption that intent, purpose, meaning, design etc are inherent properties of the process. I call this the William Paley fallacy, which can be observed in his "Watchmaker argument". The argument goes: "living things are complex and therefore seem designed. And where you have design, it logically follow that there must be a designer, and the candidate designer is of course usually assumed to be a creator-god. And sure if you see a chair, you can logically infer that it was designed or built by a human. This is not an extraordinary claim, as we know already that chairs and humans exist, and at least some humans can make chairs. So an object that looks designed will have three features: form, function, and usually purpose. So now let us look at living things. Usually complex, and they have form and functions. So, with ways of storing and transmitting genetic information, and variation, varieties of forms can be produced over generations. Some forms will have a certain functionality in a given environment. So over generations those forms that have useful functions in given environments will tend to have more biological fitness. [Survival and reproduction]. Note that I DID NOT include purpose. So living things LOOK designed, but are NOT designed. There is no intent, meaning, design, or purpose that is INHERENT in those process. However, things like intent, meaning, design, purpose can be EMERGENT properties of such a system. Birds building nest, beaver dams, humans chairs, and so on. Natural selection has testable explanatory power to explain how state A proceeds to state B. The mechanism does not REQUIRE: intent, purpose, design, meaning, etc. Understanding how biological and social/cultural evolution works in social species, such as humans, give us insights into how morality develops as a social "lubricant" to promote cooperation and discourage "cheating". If the survival of the group is enhanced, then the mean survival of individuals in that group is also enhanced. In any case it is an alternative explanation for the origins of morals and meanings.
You sound like a guy that has read Sapolsky or listened to his lectures. I’m a science fan. I try to understand as much as I can with what I learned in high school and university, which isn’t all that much. I usually get lost in the math. And here is were science and faith overlap for me: Without any evidence, I believe there is some underlying principle from which our universe is unfolding, and that there was a trigger or prime mover that set things into motion. Humanity might someday discover the unifying principle, but the prime mover (you might state it as “whatever set off the Big Bang”) is most probably something for which we will never have evidence. In other words, this belief is not science. It’s outside of science, even if it’s colored by science. And this is the rock upon which rests my agnosticism.
@@MarcosElMalo2 Sapolsky? I have never heard of him, but thanks, I will look him up. I am an atheist [personal definition: someone who finds insufficient evidence to believe in any deity], and TECHNICAL agnostic, meaning that I lack the arrogance to claim that I can absolutely disprove or prove the existence of any god]. As a "rule of thumb" or as "working knowledge" I don't think that any gods, supernatural, or disembodied "souls" exist. I could be wrong, of course. As for the origins of the universe, I think Darwin and Wallace gave us a hint. Variety and interactions. And a 'bottom-up" rather than a "top-down" approach to origins. The problem I have with a "prime mover" is it just creates another problem. What created the prime mover? The approach I use is "I don't know". I would rather say "I don't know" than just grope for some excuse or mechanism that cannot be tested. Of course, we can speculate. The multiverse idea [well, there are several of them] would give an explanatory framework, but there is very little data [and some say none] to support the idea of the multiverse. But to me at least, QM seems to suggest it.
