Watching your content, Dan, i realize how much i've been "trained" by my denomination to read into what the Bible is saying. And it takes humility to realize that my beliefs are wrong. This is why these apologists argue so hard against plain facts: it's about preserving ego rather than arriving at truth
9:14 THIS! This is exactly what I always try and tell people who try to argue with me over concepts of religion. You can’t inject later ideas into earlier texts. It simply just doesn’t work.
What you CAN do is negotiate with the complexity of the moral universe that people actually inhabit by reading scripture and comparing it to the world. As a theist, I treat scripture as much as a book of questions as answers. Even if you're agnostic or atheist, the way that God deals with the world can often make you think more deeply about that complexity. It makes you think "if there were a Being of superlative virtue and power, what could I do to be more like Him?" Then you personally bring those questions to God, and try out the lessons that you learn in your own life. Too many Christians, and other religionists, treat scripture as a book of overly simplistic answers, and use it to out-group others with their particular interpretation of it. It's intellectually lazy, and, if there is a God (of supreme intelligence) he certainly would grieve over this misuse.
Hello Dan. There is a video by chuck Missler called camp of Israel where chuck asserts that the camp was set up as a perfect plus sign (fundamentalist claim it's a cross) any validity to his assertion?
He identifies himself as Mormon in a cultural/familial context, not that he truly believes in the beliefs of the Latter Day Saints, as he often goes against them and says that he, himself, doesn't align with their own beliefs.
As an atheist learning about scripture, I am very grateful for the work, scholarship, dedication, and detail you provide in your videos. I learn a lot, and I'm humbled that despite your vast knowledge of scripture, you still hold a position of faith. This, to me, demonstrates that scholarship is good for everyone.
@@yerpyaboy and?? What's your point?? He's providing the scholarship even if the data contradicts whatever his faith is. That takes a lot of humility to do.
I'm another atheist who appreciates his work. Him, Bart Ehrman and Ben Stanhope have taught me so much about the Bible, and the context behind it, that I wish I knew when I was a Christian.
I'm a deist (meaning I'm convinced that the universe has an uncreated source, but I don't believe in anything like "God"), and I was raised in The Christian tradition. My rejection of Christianity is based on the logical and rhetorical inconsistencies found in the Judeo-Christian texts, but I do appreciate the texts as a window into the history, language and culture of the Biblical authors.
If you look at all the three Abrahamic religions the hard monotheism elements are actually more prominent in philosophical ruminations of later theologians than the Scriptures themselves
The Hebrew text tells a different story. "See now that it is I! I am the One, and there is no god like Me! I cause death and grant life. I strike, but I heal, and no one can rescue from My Hand!" Deuteronomy 32:39
@waitstill that passage proves our point. The passage does not say that no other gods exist. But simply no other god like Yhwh. So this passage acknowledges the existence of other gods
Agreed. The Bible gives itself away to any reader. Geneisis 1-26 God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: ... god says let us make man in our image. So where does the "let Us" , "Our image" and "Our Likeness"come from? Not to mention, who are the sons of God who married the daughters of man just before the flood? Genesis 6:1-4. They're trying to hide monomyth components by changing the names. Greek myth has one primary God and lesser gods. The Jews have one God but still mythical, lesser beings. Angels and demons. It's not a monomthism. It's an attempt to hide the template of the monomyth and make it more diverse.
Only Christians are monotheists who believe in three separate but equal gods. Yet Not equal because the Holy Spirit is the only one you can’t blaspheme against.
@@keaco73 yeah, I agree with you, it's all over the place.... It's because they read other books or creeds and put that belief into the Bible instead of just reading the Bible for a core belief.
It must be so frustrating having worked an entire life to develop the skills and knowledge base to really get into the nitty gritty of a subject and having to listen to some internet rando baldly tell you that you are wrong. Let's all give Dan a round of applause for all the cussing that he DID NOT DO on his video.
Hosea 2, god says you shall no longer call ME baal you will call me husband, i will wipe all the names of baal from your lips.. baal was one of those “gods” but god is clearly saying its all him and they are worshipping him wrong. Imo
Same. Sunday school doesn't really highlight the multitude of Canaanite gods the Israelites worshipped or the genocides the Yawists commit to wipe out these opposing cultures.
Michener does an interesting job in "The Source", trying to explain the emergence of monotheism in Canaan when there were so many other choices around for them. It's not "factual", but helped me with understanding the possible development of monotheism.
Monotheism came, in the end, from cultural isolationism. Middle East, as many other parts of the world, had a complete pantheon of distinct deities. As usual, each deity reigned over a specific domain (the heavens, the underworld, the sea, etc). Some groups identified themselves with a particular God: for example Athens honored Athena, while Sparta honored Ares. They still recognized all other gods, and made sacrifices when convenient (sacrifices to Poseidon to have a good naval endeavour, etc) Ancient hebrews were seminomadic people living in a land dominated by farming people. There are always conflicts when that happens, because landowners don't want people crossing, and probably pillaging, their fields, and when most of the land has an owner, nomadism becomes unsustainable. Ancient hebrews grew resentful of all other cultures living in that land, and from that hatred and the fear of cultural assimilation, promoted their cultural god, from just one god, to the most important one, and then, to the only one. They also made up a a epic for themselves, where they escaped slavery both from Egypt in the south and Babylon in the north, and conquered the land inbetween, all thanks to their more powerful god.
Not all Jews were monotheists even during the Qumran days. At least one copy of Deuteronomy has Yahweh and the other national gods as subordinate gods to El Elyon.
The text of the Pentateuch, as well as the Prophets, is very clear that people, even (proto-)Jews, believed in multiple deities. The exhortations for Jews/Hebrews are all about _worshipping_ the (one) god who redeemed them from Egypt. The idea that Jews were actually monotheists was retrojected at a much later period. Possible late Second Temple era, or a bit earlier.
I've heard some practitioners of Judaism identify with Monolatry, in that they recognize other gods (or at least don't deny them) but they only have covenant or worship with one. Which I think makes sense with the Bible.
Monolatry was certainly a phase in the history of Judaism, but the post-exilic Genesis 1 and Deutero-Isaiah are monotheistic works that don't leave any space for other gods.
There is no God but Allah. This is the pure monotheism. There aren't other gods out there. These are just names and imaginations as the Quran says. To say that monotheism was developed in the enlightment era is simply ignorant or dishonest.
Happy to see another video, Dan. I recommended you to my mom. She is Protestant, by denomination, and I do think that she would find what you say interesting.
While Dan is correct on all of this as far as I can tell, I'm not sure the Great Cairo Hymn of Praise/Great Hymn to the Aten is a great source to prove this point as it was written during and for the Armana Heresy. Although I personally view Atenism as henotheistic, it is often described as monotheistic (or at least monolatristic) and thus isn't an iron-clad example of non-monotheistic writing.
I've listened to a lot of religion scholars on RUclips and one thing i haven’t heard mentioned is that the god presented in the Old Testament is specifically the god of the Jews/Israelites, not the god of all the peoples of the world. There's mention of taking care of HIS people and often at the expense of other nations, cities or tribes. So he might be the only god for the "chosen people" but he can’t be the only god. It's not till the New Testament that his nature is changed and he becomes the god of everybody. Pretty strong evidence for me that we create our gods and not the other way around.
Even the God of New Testament (I prefer the term Gospels) is a Jewish God. In fact Christianity choose to slowly being monotheistic, probably due to Greek philosophers and Gnostics
Dan has enumerated on this multiple times over the course of his videos. I genuinely recommend just going to his channel and hitting the "Play all" button under the videos tab. It'll take you a while to get back to the near-beginning of the channel, but Dan mentions a few times about the children of "Elohim".
So because zeus is the most powerful god and all others are lower gods, then the Greeks were monotheistic? The guy arguing that the bible is monotheistic clearly doesn't understand what monotheism is.
You're correct about most of this, but the philosophical monotheism you're talking about isn't as modern as you're implying - it's found in Plato, Aristotle, and subsequent Platonic and Aristotelian schools of Greek philosophy that were very influential on both 2nd Temple Judaism and early Christianity.
The Aramaic translation by Onkelos moved away from corporeal translations long before Maimonides, but Dan is correct that it did not become almost universally accepted dogma in Jewish thought until then.
Its a hard pill to swollow for Xtians, but the bible is not monothestic, because monotheism means that only one god exists. The whole divine council consists of many gods. So there are many gods in the bible even if they are not the one worshipped by Israel. Trinitarians also worship 3 beings. The father is not the son, the son not the father and both are not the HG. The son also has a God, the father is his God.
Trinitarians do not worship 3 beings. The whole trinity philosophy emerged later in Christian history by which point monotheism is already rooted, and emerged as a way to reconcile the nature of Christ and the Jewish God in an explicitly monotheistic context
@@ihavenojawandimustscream4681 these are 3 beings by definition. The father is not the son, the son not the father and both not the hg. They dont worship the father alone or the son alone. These are different beings. The father is the God of Jesus Christ. That's not monotheistic. The bible is also not monotheistic
@@JopJio yeah, they don't worship the son alone or the father alone because otherwise that would be polytheism. The reason why the three is always invoked together is because according to the trinitarians all three are part of the same Divine substance (homoousious) this is different than say the Hindu Trimurti where Brahma, Shiva and Vishnu have their own individual rites
@ihaveno this would be monaltry. Unitarians don't see Jesus as God and worship only the father as God but the bible itself is not monotheistic because there are many gods. So I am arguing from a bible perspective where it doesn't say anything about a substance or the three as one God. Jesus also has a God, the father is his God. So this polytheism. We have 3 different beings, one the God of the other but all 3 are worshipped. And we can clearly see why this concept was attractive to Gentile Christians, we find similar concepts in ancient Rome or ancient Greece or Egypt
@JopJio That's not how Trinitarianism works though. They are three persons of one being which is God. It's not three separate distinct beings. Also the Bible isn't monotheistic or polytheistic because it's a book lol. It doesn't have any beliefs. What you mean to say that polytheism can be seen in the Old Testament. However in the New Testament it's quite apparent that Judaism had evolved to be monotheistic much in the same way that they also developed a concept of hell whereas before there was only the underworld.
Maybe the reason this is tough for folks to grasp is because the word "henotheism" isn't more commonly known? I'm not sure how anyone reads the Torah without realizing the Israelites in that text believe in the existence of other gods besides theirs.
Again we get into the weeds when we talk about gods and hierarchy. In Ezekial 8, 12 - 14. Ezekial is having a vision on the banks canal that abutts the Tigris river. The temple is destroyed, but his god is showing him a vision of a woman at the steps of the temple crying to Tammuz. In fact there is a Jewish month of Tammuz. Whereas in Judges it is difficult to unweave the near-eastern and mesopotamian beliefs in the text because of the pejorative spin later writers put on the accounts, here in Ezekial his god is recognizing the tears to Tammuz. The problem here that Abrahamic faiths have is that these spurious references to gods are not singular devotions per-say, but a system of belief. How to understand this belief I will use a mystical construct. Imagine we had a world that was bichromatic, imagine we only could see yellow and blue. So if we imagine mesopotamia over time we had rising from the mud of SE IRAQ, cities. There might be a couple of settlements, then those settlements grow in size, then more settlements appear. . . . .then finally cities, then confederations of cities, then dynasties, then transcontinental dynasties. So if we use our Yellow filter we see the rise of tribal chiefs, chieftains, lugal, major lugal, dynastic leaders and so on. So if we use our Blue filter we see shaman, the priests, then high priests, then high priests of dynastic gods, visiers, etc. And underlying that we have some old sprites, like Apsu, and then some gods appear and they kill off the sprites, the a civilization god appears, and his allied cities god rise up the ranks, and a number of gods appear under each of these. Then you have dynastic supreme gods like Istar, then Marduk, than Asshur (though it seems Asshur preceded Marduk) and they assume the names and qualities of other older gods. So what we see is that events in viewed in the blue filter mirror those in the yellow filter and the world, green, harmonizes those two. That is the nature of elevational differences within the divine sky (blue) relative to the divine or sprite filled earth (yellow). As the fate of peoples ebbs and flows, so do their gods, gods die. Asshur died, Marduk died, for the most part 'l died. Thousands of gods that rose out of the mud, died with the misfortunes of the iron age, antiquity, and the muslem conquest. When the name of the god was no longer called into, the god was dead. And so, we see, god belief is a very human thing, and from a mystical point of view, these beliefs are internal often mystical, experiential (like Ezekiel) but then exoterically presented. That process is invariably interpreted through the eyes of the Mystic. And so interpretation by non-mystics is fraught with problems. It is from this heirarchy that Ezekial lays out a new, occult, view of heaven. His particular goal is not to get rid of the other gods, who has fallen in rank but hangs on his belief. In Ezekiels name we see that 'l still has meaning to at least his parents. But Yahweh has fallen, the other gods have meaning to his people and they are forgetting about his beloved land's god. And so who is Tammuz? Tammuz is the demigod, husband of Ishtar, sent to the underworld because of his infidelity, but given a reprieve for 6 months a year. His mortal status relieved by his untimely death with a promise of eternal resurrection paints him as a dying and rising, the second of two, gods. Yahweh would be the dying and rising god, his fortunes falling with those of Jerusalem in Babylon, and rising with the Exiles leaving in Persia. Tammuz was part of the system, Yahweh was part of the system. Tammuz was Bad Tibera, Yahweh was Jerusalem and the lands to the SSE. Isra'el was born out of a system of colonies original built for trade westward, colonies like Urushalim, outposts like Beth lahmu, and ritual sites like Beth El. All of these have ties to the dawn of civilization in the east. But for centuries Egypt ran these places, and then Egypt retreated and they tried to emulate the system (yellow and blue), but eventually became petty kingdom, as happened at the end of the late bronze age collapse. In that context nomads from Arava and beyond appeared and assumed positions of power and elevated the status of their god YHW_ . Yahweh was elevated in the heavenly heirarchy by its believers, which in Samaria ebbed and flowed. In Judea it Ebbed under Hezekiah and Yosiah, and flowed during the reign of his second son, and all but disappeared during exile. This is the nature of the old gods. All once powerful, but their fortunes went the way of their lands. Here is the nature of belief exposed through the long haul of human civilization, we project into the heavens what we experience as divine, try to convince others of its divinity, but as history shows every divine that has come up, has fallen down, the overwhelming majority of bronze age gods have died, but the heirarchy, so admired, has not. All the gods that appear unchanging in ones lifetime, are in fact always changing, rising in one life, dying in another. We project what is ours onto gods, neglecting the source and polishing the idol.
I like this description you have laid out. It explains much of history. The spiritual knowledge was never to fully be understood literally but, as you have said, basically through the eyes of the mystic. There's a reason for something like, "Eyes to see" or "Ears to hear." This never meant the physical eyes and ears, but those who had senses attuned to the non-physical.
@@kalinora3901 But unfortunately, Yeshu was trapped in his system of piety. Elaine Pagels does a good job of redressing this in her comparison of the gospels of John and Tomas, each trying to capture in their own way what was left of "Jesus" mysticism after the Temple fell. Its not a bad theology that she develops in that approach. The problem from a christian perspective is when you go looking for the "spiritual" basis there is no objective stop point, because the mysticism in the NT is tied to near eastern mysticism. Paul for instance seems to be inspired by Hekhalot mysticism, which is at least as old as Ezekial. Revelations appears to tie itself to Merkaval, again has roots in the exilic system. If you follow the threads backwards you end up in middle bronze age mesopotamia trying to decide what aspects of these stories are mystical and what part part of the city-state apparatus. Im pretty convinced that the Apkallu sages were a mystical cult within Enki devotion, much like monks they sought out far off places for inspiration.
There's nothing like it when someone pulls out a dictionary or the stanford encyclopaedia to make a point. It's as if they these resources are prescriptive, rather than descriptive, and that there's nothing else to be learnt about a concept that isn't in the dictionary definition.
My memory on this is fuzzy and I'm too lazy to look into it, but I would have thought that the doctrine of monotheism (basically what is quoted here from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) was pretty thoroughly elaborated much earlier than the 17th century, in the 11th century by Islamic scholars like Al Ghazali and Avicenna (Ibn Sina). Something to look into in any case. I do recall that Islamic theology and philosophy was very influential for medieval Christians such as Aquinas.
There's got to be some context missing from that quotation he shows, because while the monotheism aspect isn't badly described, it's a really weird take on theism. Many old pagan beliefs wouldn't even qualify as theistic. The "omnipotent, omniscient goodness" is very monotheistic approach to theism. Later Hellenistic philosophy (and some other traditions) leaned in that direction, with "the gods" being treated as aspects of some supreme godhead, but many early polytheistic religions just didn't do that at all. Their gods weren't omniscient, omnipotent or even necessarily good. And we see a lot of that in the Hebrew Bible, if we read it critically.
I love that Dan brings up a point that historians also constantly have to fight against: bringing modern lenses to older texts. We're constantly taught that we have to place the works within the time they were written. Thanks for reminding people of this very crucial detail.
I have zero concerns with your content about God(s) and think you're a rather no-nonsense critical thinker. The kind of person I respect and admire, and am attracted to intellectually. It's ok of course, with me - and I don't count anyway regarding any personal spirituality you have. It's all good. As an atheist, I love and appreciate the kind, calm, loving and gentle Christians. Most of the world does like kindly, gentle believers even of disagreement.
By his argument, pretty much every religion of the eastern Med and Mesopotamia was "monotheist", because all of them included precisely this sort of "lesser god" hierarchy he's trying to establish as "monotheist". Like: Zeus is just explicitly "The King of the Gods" and "God of Gods" as early as the Iliad, and this formulation has a loooooong history in Egypt and Mesopotamia even before the earliest examples of it in Olympian belief.
In 1st Corinthians Paul seems to be agnostic when it comes to other gods and/or he simply views other gods as “demons”. I think one could easily read monotheism into what he is expressing here even though I don’t know what Dan or other scholars may say on this matter.
If you truly believed what you say you believe, then you would not have the need to defend your opinion. A Dona is...a woman...in Italian..you haven't even begun to break through the veil..let alone the crust... scholars..Pharasis....hilarious
Monotheism as found in philosophy (Modern, medieval or ancient) doesn't depend on the concept of creation ex nihilo. It just doesn't. You'll find plenty of theist philosophers, particularly ones drawing on Aquinas and Aristotle, who explicitly insist that their concept of God (Or at least their theistic arguments) are compatible with the universe having existed for eternity.
Hi Dan. Do you have a take on / explanation for which commandments Are the "real" ten commandments? Someone pointed out that the ten commandments I learned in church aren't the ones God calls the ten commandments in the Bible. I looked it up and the commandments he called the ten were things like keeping the feast of weeks and not boiling goats in mother's milk. I'm confused how we get the other ten commandments in so many places when the text seems to disagree.
Well, in one sense this is great but in another … I'm not getting it. Creation _ex nihilo_ in my (modern!) mind comes from worrying about mathematical induction, and worrying about the chain of “… and where did _that_ come from…” with which physics _still_ struggles (I think because physicists generally suffer from an inescapable intuitive physicalisation of the sub-physical, as it were, but that's another rant). But I'm not sure I buy the argument that the absence of this one, late-developing, thread means that these earlier examples are not meaningful “monotheistic”. Rather, I have the distinct impression (and goodness knows I am not the professional in this field that you are, so please correct me if I'm wrong) that across time and across the world we see a tendency for certain systematising intellectuals to go, you know what? Reality is really very coherent and perhaps all these different effects have a common cause; perhaps all their gods are descendants/aspects/projects/… of a single divine principle. Or even … perhaps there's only one God after all, and these other things are merely stories we tell ourselves? At the very moment you introduce the discussion of infinite regression in creation, that kind of thinking will crystallise into “monotheism” in your sense, because the number of ways in which founding a chain of causes can be integrated with an omnipotent deity is limited (there's the unsatisfying unmoved mover solution, which in some sense deals with origin of things but not the origin of complexity, and the more satisfying meta-creation solution, which requires a great deal more technical sophistication; and I suppose there are some exotic solutions where causation is not in fact a chain-perhaps those lead somewhere interesting? But other than simple cycles, I've never heard them discussed.). Sorry, off on a tangent. What I'm really trying to say is, I don't think we need to focus on _ex nihilo_ because if we introduce a notion of premonotheism which is the usual definition minus _ex nihilo_ we get something coherent that extends uniquely to _ex nihilo,_ suggesting that the _ex nihilo_ condition itself was not really required to draw the distinction. To put that differently, if we had a conception with a single “big” god but, say, a cyclically eternal universe, would it benefit our understanding to identify that as non-monotheistic, because it has a different _creation_ rather than a different _creator?_ I certainly don't think that's how the general public understands matters. I have the distinct impression that the general public doesn't wrestle with infinite regression very much at all. I would, of course, be delighted if you correct me. Love your work here.
These conceited people with no understanding trying to debate actual scholars really get my goat. I thought it was something that only happened in discussions about vaccines--I am a virologist and immunologist--but apparently it is ubiquitous.
“Doesn’t mean there can’t be demons referred to as lower gods” So he would still believe there are no other gods and thus monotheism. : /. If you claim the “other gods” are fakes what would that change about what Dan said? Lmaooo
I think if you believe in the one God while acknowledging the existence of "lower gods", you're not monotheistic you're henotheistic, which I take to be biblically accurate
Yeah there is no defense here. The building was about 400 feet away, within the line of sight from the podium and buildings in which snipers were mounted. This is an obvious area to defend, and it was left wide open. Combine that with the trump administration asking for more security and being denied. I don’t want to be a conspiracy theorist but it is tough not to ask why such an obvious vacuum of security existed. I also wonder how did the kid know where to go, even if you scope the area out first how did he know that this building would be open and not monitored. It’s just hard for me not to see conspiracy’s here.
Geneisis 1-26 God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.god says let us make man in our image. So where does the "let Us" , "Our image" and "Our Likeness"come from?
If you have studied a foreign language, many of them have a more formal version of "you" that either shows respect to an individual or refers to multiple people. English had this feature in the past (thee was singular and you was plural / formal, I think,) and it also had what was called the "royal we." There are other places in the Bible that refer to the existence of other gods, but that is not one of them.
Hell, the fact that they refer to god as "he" would imply not only the existence of "she" gods, but an entire species of gods with their own evolutionary history.
@@justinwatson1510 So - who was he talking to ? Also , when he said "And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as ONE OF US, to know good and evil" (Gen. 3:22) - - -
@@tezzerii I was talking about Islam. I understand that it is a fanfiction of Judaism, but Mohammad had no way of knowing that Judaism started in a polytheistic culture. Hell, Christianity is a fanfiction of Judaism and most Christians don't even know that. Either way, pointing out the use of "we" by god to a Muslim is a pointless endeavor; I know because I've tried.
The only thing I would like clarified on this point about monotheism being a post-enlightenment philosophy is the concept of ''tawhid'' in Islam.. Is it not far older than Henry More's conception? And is it not as a strict definition of monotheism as More's concept?
here is a semantics specialist: the more i watch these videos- when i see Dan but hear Inigo Montoya... "you keep using that word... i do not think it means what you think it means..."
There is no need to deny scholarship about the Bible in order to believe in it... Michael Heiser and NT Wright and Tim Mackie & the Bible Project all follow the scholarship, yet still find Divinity in Scripture. As do I, for that matter. If we love the Creator, how can we reject His Creation? Just because the Bible is a book doesn't mean it is any less inspired a book. But inspired and inerrant are not the same... Many books are inspired. I find the Big Book of AA an inspired and inspirational work, but that doesn't mean it wasn't also written by a bunch of old drunks trying to get better. That's the best part of Scripture, God reaching us through imperfect means, through flawed human hands. If He used the Biblical authors to reach so many despite *their* flaws, what can we do if we listen to Him now, with our own flaws and flawed understanding-- but perhaps greater knowledge and compassion? That is an amazing promise, and by making of the Bible an inerrant text, we lose it. If we make of the Bible an idol, how are we better than pagans, falling for a piece of wood and paper? Or a golden calf?
It's kind of like how warriors most likely saw Mars or Tor as their main obeject of worship and developed the doctrines of only warriors get to dine with the gods in the afterlife. I don't think women or farmers had much use for that kind of creed same a these so called meek don't have much use for the doctrine of christs apocalyptic war.
SATAN IS A GOD !!! I know a lot of people don't want to admit it, and it probably doesn't say so 8n the bible. But even if you go by the definition of what a God was when the Bible was being written, Satan falls into that definition. So if you follow the Bible and believe what it tells you, then you believe in at least two gods
If there is only one God who *didn’t* create everything else, where did it come from? The implication of monotheism is that the one God is the only eternal, all-present being, so if there is pre-God “stuff” around, then that “god” isn’t really the God of Monotheism
*Not **_ex nihilo_* When Elohim began to shape/create: the land was formless and empty and darkness was over the face of Tehom and the spirit/wind/breath of Elohim was hovering over the (sur)face of the waters… So there was already formless land, Tehom/sea and “the waters”.
People worshipped and praised gods attempting to obtain favor, just like today. Our former president behaves just like those Bronze Age gods. He expects constant praise and worship too. Fortunately, he will perish and leave us.
Dan, I understand that the Bible doesn't elaborate a philosophical framework of creation ex nihilo, but in the first chapter of Genesis when God creates the heavens and the earth and speaks the various parts of creation into being, it certainly seems like he is creating out of nothing, at least to a layman like me. Can you explain? Thank you!
I'm a little confused. I'm not sure I'm convinced that strict monotheism was developed simply in the 17th century. Especially given the debate around Jesus in the third century whether or not he was God. Wouldnt it make more sense that the reason why the Trinity was invented was specifically because Christians of that time believed in a strict monotheism, and when Jesus is called God in the New testament they were confused because there is only one God.
That theory makes no sense as Thomas Aquinas lived in the 13th century and taught the same thing. Early Christians took some time to understand the Trinity because they were monotheists who realized God came in the flesh, while submitting to God the Father. It took some time to understand this, but looking back at the Old Testament with this revelation multiple divine persons are visible.
Because something existed before. Usually it's water or night or chaos.... Creation ex nihilo imply that only 1 god existed for eternity. Usually many mythologies tell that the creator god is born from Chaos, night, even an egg (Chinese/Corean mythos).
@@johna1427 If we read Genesis God is never described as being absolutely alone, in short the only reality. There is always another element like tohu-va-bohu
The bible denies existence of other gods. Did you ever read the dead sea scrolls Deuteronomy 32:8-9 (Dead Sea Scrolls) When Elyon divided the nations, when he separated the sons of Adam, he established the borders of the nations according to the number of the sons of the gods. Yahweh’s portion was his people, [Israel] his allotted inheritance. Elyon is the head Canaanite god. In charge of 70 gods of the 70 known countries. Including Yahweh.
Yes, later in the bible Yahweh gets promoted to head god. In Psalm 82, we see Yahweh not at the head of the pantheon, but later asked to assume the job of all gods. “Yahweh stands in the divine assembly of *El*. Among the divinities, he pronounces judgment… Arise O Yahweh, judge the world; for You inherit all the nations.”
According to Orthodox rabbis, "Elyon" ( עֶלְיוֹן ) is one of many names of the Elohim / God of Israel (Psalm 9:1-2 for example). There are at least 7 various Hebrew names for the Creator in the Tanakh, and rabbis say there are many more, but it has been years since I studied this. * There are several Jewish Orthodox websites that go into detail on these names.
@@What_If_We_Tried Yahweh gets promoted in Psalms "According to a reasonable (if radical) understanding of the original verse 8, when all gods in the world received their inheritance from a senior god appropriately named Elyon ([most] high), YHWH was a merely a minor deity.[16] YHWH subsequently raised Israel, making Himself a reputation as a senior and successful god among other nations and their gods. At the end of the poem (verse 43), whose original version is preserved in the scroll 4QDeutq and (in slightly different form which cannot be elaborated here) the Septuagint, all those gods are summoned to praise YHWH, the God of Israel, and acknowledge His greatness, similarly to the summons of Psalm 29:1-2. הרנינו שמים עִמּוֺ, והשתחוו לו כל אלהים. Sing, O Heavenly beings (or: Heavens), with Him, And bow to Him, all ye gods." Credit: Prof. Jonathan (יונתן) Ben-Dov is George and Florence Wise Chair of Judaism in Antiquity at the University of Haifa, and senior lecturer of Hebrew Bible and Second Temple Literature. He is co-editor (with Seth Sanders) of the book Ancient Jewish Sciences and the History of Knowledge in Second Temple Literature (ISAW and New York University Press).
@@fordprefect5304 You're entitled to your opinion, of course, but as a non-religious person it's all mythology to me. All 'other gods' can be interpreted as solely metaphorical, i.e., referring to the religious beliefs of pagan / polytheistic nations, and this is the position of Orthodox Rabbis, or it can be interpreted as you stated, and often is by textual critics, and/or liberal forms of Judaism. Having said that, it's interesting to watch the tremendous efforts that Christian apologists, and Muslim Imams have to go thru in an effort to discredit the traditional Israelite / Jewish explanations of their bible (the Tanakh), and the Torah observant (Jewish Orthodox) post-apocalyptic view that 1) all the enemies of Israel will be destroyed, and 2) that their Beith HaMikdash (the Temple) will be rebuilt, and sacrificial services restored, and 3) the entire world, Jew and Gentile will be able to worship God at their Temple in Jerusalem. (look at Zechariah 14, and Isaiah 66 for example). Contrast that POV, with conservative Christian, and Muslim post-apocalyptic perspectives in which all non-believers will burn in hell for eternity.
Dan like the root of his name, is a fair judge. It's always great to learn how to untangle the web of tradition, dogma and misinterpretation that so many apologists and preachers spread, without truly understanding much of it.
That person referring to Ireneaus as "early" Second Century I find amusing, Irenaeus was born about 130 AD and his career as writer is mainly associated with the last few decades of the century. I agree that Monotheism strictly speaking isn't Biblical but for it seems different reasons. I am referring to The Trinity from my somewhat Stoic perspective when i argue that not Angels. I am currently undecided on Creation Ex Nihilo, that sounds like something means different things to different people. The Middle Platonist Monotheism of the Second Century you are referring to however I view as coming form Egypt, from what the Egyptians believed about Ptah and Atum.
WHO DOES JESUS’ POWER AND SPIRIT BELONG TO? WHO DOES JESUS SERVE? WHO IS THE FATHER OF THE FIRSTBORN-PROTOTOKOS, MEANING ‘BIRTH ORDER, FIRST CHILD BORN’-OF EVERY CREATURE? WHOSE POWER WAS DONE IN JESUS WHEN HE RAISED HIM FROM THE DEAD AND SET HIM AT HIS OWN RIGHT SIDE? WHO PUT JESUS FAR ABOVE EVERYONE AND EVERYTHING FOR THE REST OF ETERNITY (EPHESIANS 1:20-22)? WHO SAID “THIS IS MY BELOVED SON” (MATTHEW 3:17)? WHO’S POWER AND SPIRIT THAT RAISED JESUS FROM THE DEAD WILL ALSO QUICKEN ALL WHO BELONG TO HIM (ROMANS 8:11)? WHO IS THIS ONE SPIRIT THAT DOES ALL THINGS? WHO LOVED US SINNERS SO MUCH THAT HE WOULD GIVE HIS ONLY BEGOTTEN SON SO THAT WE MAY HAVE ETERNAL LIFE? ONE WORD: GOD.
@@karldehaut NOT INTERESTED IN YOUR APPROVAL. THE WORD OF GOD SAYS THE FATHER IS GREATER THAN ALL (JOHN 10:29). IT ALSO SAYS THAT GOD MADE ALL THINGS BY/THROUGH JESUS AND THAT NO MAN CAN SEE GOD EXCEPT BY JESUS. JESUS IS THE WAY, TRUTH, AND LIFE TO THE FATHER…WHO IS GOD: JESUS IS MOST CERTAINLY NOT GOD. TO SAY HE IS WHEN HE SAID HE WASN’T IS BLASPHEMY. "JESUS SAITH UNTO HIM, I AM THE WAY, THE TRUTH, AND THE LIFE: NO MAN *COMETH UNTO THE FATHER,* BUT BY ME." JOHN 14:6 "GOD HATH IN THESE LAST DAYS *SPOKEN UNTO US BY HIS SON,* WHOM HE HATH *APPOINTED HEIR OF ALL THINGS,* BY WHOM ALSO *HE MADE THE WORLDS.”* HEBREWS 1:2 "JESUS ANSWERED, IF I HONOUR MYSELF, MY HONOUR IS NOTHING: IT IS *MY FATHER* THAT HONOURETH ME; OF WHOM YE SAY, THAT *HE [THE FATHER] IS YOUR GOD:"* JOHN 8:54 "I CAN OF MINE OWN SELF *DO NOTHING:* AS I HEAR, I JUDGE: AND MY JUDGMENT IS JUST; BECAUSE *I SEEK NOT MINE OWN WILL, BUT THE WILL OF THE FATHER WHICH HATH SENT ME."* JOHN 5:30 "BUT TO US THERE IS BUT *ONE GOD, THE FATHER,* OF WHOM ARE ALL THINGS, AND WE IN HIM; AND *ONE LORD JESUS CHRIST,* BY WHOM ARE ALL THINGS, AND WE BY HIM." 1 CORINTHIANS 8:6
You realize he is a theist right? He's not dismantling theistic arguments, he's countering false ideology and misinformation. And sometimes he does a good job, and sometimes he shoehorns in his own bias...
@@Achill101 Yeah, well, Mormons are definitely NOT traditional Christians. They are much more like early (1st century) Christians, although Christianity was already splintering, at that point. For example, they take Jesus at his word when he constantly defers to the authority of the Father (even going so far as saying the Father is "greater than I"), and believe that the Supreme Being is the Father, but that Jesus, the Holy Ghost, the angels, and others are part of the "Gods" or Divine Council. In a similar vein, Mormons also reject the traditional "mystical" Trinity (which, in mainstream philosophy is considered logically impossible). Mormons also pretty much reject all of mainstream Christians' metaphysical assumptions, e.g.--Creation ex nihilo, Manichaistic duality (the belief that matter is evil, unlike the "immaterial"). Even God the Father is a material, resurrected Being, just like Jesus. Mormons are even in agreement with science that all things that exist in the universe is material, and the Doctrine & Covenants asserts that spirits are made up of "finer material"--a descent description of energy.
@@towardcivicliteracy - Mormons are certainly non-traditional when seen with a Christian eye, but they are still theists, aren't they? That was all I wanted to point out against Matthew's description. . . . Thank you for your description of Mormonism. Some I had heard before, some was new to me. Right now, I'm interested more in the bible than in Mormonism.
Desert demons your fathers never knew. Love your shirts, Dan. Also, sometimes I roll in negative... Know that I appreciate and respect the work you do. Have a horrible habit of starting my comments halfway through my thought process, so you don't hear that part. I am doing a little better every day.
I’m dying to hear you explain being LDS and a serious Bible scholar. These seems incompatible. If I may make a second request: how do you negotiate the Book of Mormon?
He identifies himself as Mormon in a cultural/familial context, not that he truly believes in the beliefs of the Latter Day Saints, as he often goes against them and says that he, himself, doesn't align with their own beliefs. And as well, he only shares the scholarly cónsénsus, nothing else, really, aside from an announcement of something on occasion.
Now we all know the reasons the Catholic Church were opposed to a Bible in the vernacular ! They imagined all the Faithful reading it and discussing it openly and fruitfully engaging positively with its complexity and uniting the faithful with God's clear and unambiguous message 😳🤔😂
No, they were opposed to having it freely available because manuscript copies were astronomically expensive and valuable because they had to be painstakingly copied by hand. That's why priests gave homilies at each Mass, to expose the faithful to readings from the Bible text and then explain them. Remember this was before the printing press, and it was the invention of the printing press that enabled the Protestant Reformation.
He not acknowledging it because he doesn’t know what she’s talking about!! He’s not a scholar of anything!!! And he has some bogus background with books. Theses people has to be stopped. Thank you Dan
Dear Dan I was always under the impression that the New Testament described a paradigm that only recognises one God. Are there any passages within the New Testament that explicitly show us that the first Christians believed that other gods existed? And is it impossible to hold the view that there is only one God without the notion of creatio ex nihilo being a part of that concept? Not being a learned theological scholar in any of this - but it seems to me that despite being an atheist all my life, I have never considered creatio ex nihilo as the one crucial aspect of monotheim. Is there a difference between scholarly theological understanding and folk understanding of monotheism? Or have I just missed some glaring facts about the medieval period and have been entirely mistaken to believe that Crusaders marching off to Antioch regarded the number of gods that existed in a different way to how Scipio's men thought about that number more than a thousand years earlier?
@@Achill101 That seems to contradict what Dan is saying, if I've understood him right. I suppose when he says 'the Bible' he could just mean the Jewish scriptures - but - and maybe I'm completely wrong - he said that monotheism as we understand it today did not come into being until at least the 2nd century CE, and maybe not until the 17th century. I'm totally down with the Old Testament charting the evolution from polytheism and henotheism to monolatry...but I was under the impression like you that by the common era, the Jews were monotheists. Maybe monotheism precisely doesn't exist in the Jewish Bible, but that still leaves the New Testament, and so if first century Jews were monotheists, that would suggest the New Testament would be too, given it was written by 'Judeo Christians', or at least written for them.
@@Achill101 There is no evidence of your claim. Rabbinic Judaism, developed post the 1st century, is definitely monotheistic, but there is actually no evidence of a monotheisic Judaism prior to this. There is no textual evidence, and also no archaeological evidence either.
*And is it impossible to hold the view that there is only one God without the notion of creatio ex nihilo being a part of the concept?* It is not. There are plenty of deists who hold this view. *Is there a difference between scholarly theological understand and folk understanding of monotheism?* Absolutely. Most non-scholarly monotheists are willfully uninformed, and get all their "knowledge" from what their local pastors regurgitate to them. Folks do not study theology. They are not taught theology. This is no different to how the type of "science" non-scientists learn in school has almost nothing to do with real scientific research as actually conducted by scientists in academia. Most non-scientists are thus, in this way, scientifically illiterate, and woefully unequipped to speak about any science at all.
You do realize Christianity could be considered a polytheistic religion with God the father, god the son, and god the holy spirit? They had fights about this and some current denominations do not recognize Jesus as god. In addition, this was a religiously diverse group with many gods. the christian god was just one of many. The people didn't really have the word monotheist or polytheist like we do. They'd be like "That's Joseph and he worships the Jewish god" and "That's Catullus and he worships Bacchus as his house deity" sort of thing. So implicitly, they all thought that other gods existed, but we didn't have this idea that later came into being where "Bacchus isn't a god. He's a demon. My god is The god. And I'll kill you if you say anything else.." (You might come across it if you spoke with a Hindu and you were trying to convert them. Ask me how I know. I had the very strange experience of this Hindu person showing me the place of honor they had put my Christ in... along with their household deities. Jesus was just one other god and, now, I understand the respect I was given. Back then,I was thinking..."You've defiled my religion". I have this impression that the early Christians and even the existing Jewish population never thought about monotheism and polytheism the way we look at it now. It's a modern idea.) I'll use the analogy of fans. Let's take football because I like men in spandex tights and their fans. The ones who like the Dallas Cowboys are aware that other fans exist. But to be a fan of the Dallas Cowboys, you can't be fans of another football team. It was all about getting followers to follow your team. Afterwards, when you had enough followers, you would start to disqualify other teams from the NFL by saying.. "Are the NY Giants really a football team? They're college league. Not NFL league. and .. voila...you've started the process of eliminating existing competition for worship that will result in only the Dallas Cowboys being considered the "one true football team".) To put it simply.. we're applying a modern understanding of the terms monotheism and polytheism onto a culture that was immersed with many gods and many different fans of said gods. It was just "Don't talk to Bill about the Dallas Cowboys. He's a Packer's fan. He'll kill you if you suggest that Dallas will win." (And then, you do just to see Bill blow up and insult the Cowboys like only a fan of a rival team would do.) *Please note.. all teams have been changed. I reserve the right to modify this analogy and use other teams and sports. And please.. for the love of your life.. never anger a kpop fan group. We must be very very careful with those fandoms. We can also look at the discussion about the trinity. One of the most awkward concepts to be thought up. I swear that concept was made up to figure out who was a true believer and who was pretending. Three in one? Like when the cartoon teams robots merge to form a super robot? it's a messy incestuous idea.
“What do I mean then? That a thing sacrificed to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything? No, but I say that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons and not to God; and I do not want you to become sharers in demons. You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons; you cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons.” 1 Corinthians 10:19-21 “They made Him jealous with strange gods; With abominations they provoked Him to anger. They sacrificed to demons who were not God, To gods whom they have not known, New gods who came lately, Whom your fathers did not dread.” Deuteronomy 32:16-17 There is no fundamental discontinuity on this issue between the old and the New Testament these verses which don’t even reference each other clearly convey the same thing. That the gods of other nations are really demons. “I am the Lord, and there is no other; Besides Me there is no God. I will gird you, though you have not known Me;” Isaiah 45:5 “Besides me there is no other God” Seeming how Deuteronomy and exodus were written probably around the same time it would be pretty clear that the “gods” of the Egyptians really being demons makes total sense since contextually in the song Moses He is singing about is referring to the Egyptian gods calling them demons. Your claim that there is not “monotheism in the entirety of the Bible” is a claim no scholar would ever make except maybe a few fringe scholars. Most would assume it develops by the time of Isaiah but the truth is it’s throughout the entirety of scripture.
@@karldehaut the consensus in atheistic studies is there is a slow development of monotheism that ends up in the book of Daniel or Isaiah. It’s is almost unanimous that all scholars believe there is monotheism in the Bible at some point. Now I wouldn’t expect anyone who can’t see the fact that the scriptures which constantly predict the future for example Isaiah which says a man was going to be born of a Virgin who is God with us and would die to cover the sins of others which is undeniably written 700 years before someone just so happens to claim to be born of a virgin, claim to be God and die on the behalf of others to justify them they have to deny the clear divine inspiration of this because they are forming opinions under the belief that it’s impossible for it to be true.
You quote Deuteronomy 32 but leave out verse 8 and 9 where El divides the land amongst the gods and gives a portion, in this case Israël, to Yahweh to rule over. And when you create your own religion it's logical to call the other regional gods (not only Egyptian) false gods, demons etc
@@KasperKatje your translation of that is pretty bad it says God divided the lands according to the number for sons of God like how each person goes down to represent a nation as opposed to your obscure understanding which says God divides the lands to lesser Gods. The following verse proves your wrong because he gives and example of how Jacob becomes a nation, just like Cain did and so on and so forth.
No, that reflects the Aristotelian notion that material without form & function occupies a state of “non-being.” To impose form & function upon it is to move it into a state of “being,” thereby creating it. It’s not creation out of nothing, it’s the imposition of form & function on formless matter. This is the academic consensus regarding that passage and a couple passages in the New Testament.
@@maklelanI just realized that I can tag you like this. I’m eager to hear from you about the note from the NOAB and it has also occurred to me to ask you what book or other source(s) you would recommend on the scholarship about creation ex nehilo and monotheism and the Bible’s relationship to the two? I would express a preference for sources that account for the Apocrypha (2 Maccabees in particular). Thank you.
@@maklelanI also want to express my gratitude for the light you shed on all these topics. I have found your videos dispelling claims that Biblical prophecy and the Book of Revelation foretell events and wars happening today to be especially illuminating and valuable. Thank you.
@@34DaveRL The only note I see in the New Oxford Annotated Apocrypha states that Christians from Origen (born around the time the doctrine was created) and after understood it as a reference to creation ex nihilo. The best discussions on this are the following: Gerhard May, Creatio Ex Nihilo Jonathan Goldstein, "The Origins of the Doctrine of Creation Ex Nihilo" James Hubler, "Creatio ex Nihilo" Maren Niehoff, "Creatio ex Nihilo Theology in Genesis Rabbah in Light of Christian Exegesis" Anderson & Bockmuehl, Creation ex nihilo Markus Bockmuehl, "Creatio ex nihilo in Palestinian Judaism and Early Christianity
Hi Dan, I would love to see a video, maybe hard to make, in which you address the question of how you manage to maintain your faith commitments in light of all the uncertainty and revision of the holy texts. Because I can see how faith can be altered or weakened or even strengthened the more you study the texts. I'm assuming that you began your faith journey before you had all the facts, and I'm assuming that facts have influenced this journey, but I'm really curious how exactly. Maybe that's a wrong assumption, maybe your faith is completely independent of what Jesus actually said and the meaning of the texts, but I suspect they are intertwined
@@howlrichard1028 I get that, so I'm wondering if he's done that on other channels ? Hes discussed some of his personal history on Mormon podcasts, and that's been really enlightening, but I dont recall him addressing the question i posed here
I'm dying to know about this apparent contradiction too. I just can't compute his academic approach with my (admittedly sketchy) conception of the Church of Jesus christ of latter day saints. @@txikitofandango
If you have had personal spiritual experiences, how do you put that into academic terms that can be supported by other sources? Or impartially replicated by others?
While I would agree that monotheism developed in the time the bible describes (9-3th century BC, from polytheism over monolatry to monotheism) and terms like omnipotent or omniscient are of later philosophical origin, but: isn't creation ex nihilo and God as a good God described in Genesis 1?
No. If you read the text carefully in Hebrew and in context, there are no signs of monotheism at all, nor is there any creatio ex nihilo. Creatio ex nihilo is a late theological invention that, via eisegesis, was read into the text many centuries after the text was written, not by Jewish theologians, but by Greek and Roman theologians.
@@angelmendez-rivera351 - Genesis 1 says God created all of the earth and the heaven. It doesn't say God created other gods or God took a turtle shell or similar and created the earth from it. That sounds monotheistic and creation ex nihilo to me. What do you understand under creation ex nihilo and monotheism that wouldn't be in Genesis 1?
@@Achill101 *Genesis 1 says God created all of the earth and heaven. It doesn't say God created other gods or God took a turtle shell or similar and created the Earth from it. That sounds monotheistic and creation ex nihilo to me.* What Genesis 1:1-2 says is "In the beginning, Elohim[a] 'bara'[b] 'the heavens and the earth',[c] and the earth was 'tohu wa-bohu',[d] and darkness faced the 'tehom',[e] and the 'ruach'[f] of Elohim hovered/was hovering over the face of the waters;..." There are a couple of issues here. To begin with: the word 'Elohim' is simply a generic plural word in Hebrew to refer to a collection of gods. It need not refer to a single god, and it need not refer to one specific god. There is no monotheism implied here in the text, and in fact, elsewhere throughout Genesis, such as in Genesis 3 and Genesis 6, polytheism is heavily implied, even in the English. The word 'bara' is a word difficult to translate, because it is only ever used specifically when talking about the actions of Elohim in the text. Therefore, there is no exact translation. However, based on context, it is often translated by scholars as "ordered" or "separated." Scholars suggest in their research that, to be more precise, the act of 'bara' is the act of "fixing the destinies." The 'heavens and the earth' are a common ancient Hebrew colloquialism. In ancient Hebrew cosmology, the cosmos was comprised of three parts: the heavens, the earth, and sheol. These were three layers of the cosmos inside the dome formed by the firmament, outside of which is the endless cosmic ocean known as 'tehom' in Hebrew and in other Near-Eastern cultures of the time. This is what in English gets translated as "the deep," and it is from this cosmic ocean surrounding the heavens, the earth, and sheol, that the water from Noah's flood emerged from. 'Tohu wa-bohu' is another phrase difficult to translate. Common translations render the phrase as "empty and formless," but the reality is, nowhere else in the Hebrew scriptures does the word "bohu" ever appear, and it probably has no meaning: it was probably coined solely for the sake of rhyming with 'tohu.' The word "tohu" means "wasteness." The word 'ruach' is another one difficult to translate, because again, it is used far too rarely to actually know what the intended meaning of the word is. It is also used rather ambiguously, with very little elaboration. The most we can make out of it is that it refers to some manner of an invisible "force," but common translations use the word "spirit," probably because they are theologically motivated to do so, and not because of linguistic accuracy. Difficult as some of these phrases are to translate, though, there is a clear theme being depicted here: there is a vast cosmic ocean facing the darkness, and Elohim, using something akin to verbal incantations, which we see starting with Genesis 1:3, separated and ordered this ocean, the tehom, into the three realms of the cosmos, and the various components inside the cosmos. Nothing about this suggests creatio ex nihilo. Sure, if you read the verse out of context, and with a bad translation, then it may give the impression of ex nihilo, but even in the English translation, nowhere is it explicitly stated that creation happened "from nothing," so what you are doing is nothing other than injecting your preconceptions into the text, rather than actually just reading the text for what it says.
@@Achill101 By the way, true 'creatio ex nihilo' would entail there existing a being, and nothing else, and the being manifesting all other things. Nowhere in the Bible is this concept depicted, because ancient cultures were philosophically sophisticated enough to have such a concept. The fact that the phrase we use, creatio ex nihilo, is in Latin, and not in Hebrew, should already give you an actual hint there.
@angelmendez-rivera351 - Genesis 1 uses Elohim, because it is part of the priestly source that adjusts the name of God to ages and, e.g., doesn't use Yaweh before it is revealed to Moses at the burning bush. The priestly source is monotheistic and so is Elohim in Genesis 1. . . . I haven't learned Hebrew and cannot criticize your interpretation here, but I notice that you go from "Scholars suggesting..." to "It is clear...", a sleight of hand.
Watching your content, Dan, i realize how much i've been "trained" by my denomination to read into what the Bible is saying. And it takes humility to realize that my beliefs are wrong. This is why these apologists argue so hard against plain facts: it's about preserving ego rather than arriving at truth
9:14 THIS! This is exactly what I always try and tell people who try to argue with me over concepts of religion. You can’t inject later ideas into earlier texts. It simply just doesn’t work.
What you CAN do is negotiate with the complexity of the moral universe that people actually inhabit by reading scripture and comparing it to the world. As a theist, I treat scripture as much as a book of questions as answers. Even if you're agnostic or atheist, the way that God deals with the world can often make you think more deeply about that complexity. It makes you think "if there were a Being of superlative virtue and power, what could I do to be more like Him?" Then you personally bring those questions to God, and try out the lessons that you learn in your own life.
Too many Christians, and other religionists, treat scripture as a book of overly simplistic answers, and use it to out-group others with their particular interpretation of it. It's intellectually lazy, and, if there is a God (of supreme intelligence) he certainly would grieve over this misuse.
Excellent video!!
I think it might be helpful if you explained the concept of Henotheism to this creator.
Hello Dan. There is a video by chuck Missler called camp of Israel where chuck asserts that the camp was set up as a perfect plus sign (fundamentalist claim it's a cross) any validity to his assertion?
If you discredit all of the writings that were made after the Bible, how do you follow the Book of Mormon?
He identifies himself as Mormon in a cultural/familial context, not that he truly believes in the beliefs of the Latter Day Saints, as he often goes against them and says that he, himself, doesn't align with their own beliefs.
As an atheist learning about scripture, I am very grateful for the work, scholarship, dedication, and detail you provide in your videos. I learn a lot, and I'm humbled that despite your vast knowledge of scripture, you still hold a position of faith. This, to me, demonstrates that scholarship is good for everyone.
@@yerpyaboy and?? What's your point??
He's providing the scholarship even if the data contradicts whatever his faith is. That takes a lot of humility to do.
@@MrMortal_Ra looks like you're right lol
I'm another atheist who appreciates his work. Him, Bart Ehrman and Ben Stanhope have taught me so much about the Bible, and the context behind it, that I wish I knew when I was a Christian.
I'm a deist (meaning I'm convinced that the universe has an uncreated source, but I don't believe in anything like "God"), and I was raised in The Christian tradition. My rejection of Christianity is based on the logical and rhetorical inconsistencies found in the Judeo-Christian texts, but I do appreciate the texts as a window into the history, language and culture of the Biblical authors.
There are tons of atheists who study scripture and other religious bits. You're not alone. :)
Another sad denier of the might of Chemosh.
🤣
Yeah, Kamōš thoroughly made Yahwe his punching bag. Sad he's not talked about more often.
If you look at all the three Abrahamic religions the hard monotheism elements are actually more prominent in philosophical ruminations of later theologians than the Scriptures themselves
The Hebrew text tells a different story.
"See now that it is I! I am the One, and there is no god like Me! I cause death and grant life. I strike, but I heal, and no one can rescue from My Hand!" Deuteronomy 32:39
I'm pretty sure Deuteronomy was partly written during the captivity, at which point Monotheism had taken root among jewish scholars.
@waitstill that passage proves our point. The passage does not say that no other gods exist. But simply no other god like Yhwh. So this passage acknowledges the existence of other gods
Agreed. The Bible gives itself away to any reader. Geneisis 1-26 God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: ... god says let us make man in our image. So where does the "let Us" , "Our image" and "Our Likeness"come from? Not to mention, who are the sons of God who married the daughters of man just before the flood? Genesis 6:1-4.
They're trying to hide monomyth components by changing the names. Greek myth has one primary God and lesser gods. The Jews have one God but still mythical, lesser beings. Angels and demons. It's not a monomthism. It's an attempt to hide the template of the monomyth and make it more diverse.
@@waitstill7091So you didn’t watch the video. Way to tell on yourself.
This is why apologetics makes such poor academics.
Only Christians are monotheists who believe in three separate but equal gods. Yet Not equal because the Holy Spirit is the only one you can’t blaspheme against.
Trinitarians believe that, not all Christians believe that strange doctrine.
@@jawnatutorow not all Christians believe in same anything. Not even the that Jesus was God.
@@keaco73 yeah, I agree with you, it's all over the place.... It's because they read other books or creeds and put that belief into the Bible instead of just reading the Bible for a core belief.
Yeah, the trinity is just polytheism, even if in a soft context at best.
It must be so frustrating having worked an entire life to develop the skills and knowledge base to really get into the nitty gritty of a subject and having to listen to some internet rando baldly tell you that you are wrong. Let's all give Dan a round of applause for all the cussing that he DID NOT DO on his video.
Hosea 2, god says you shall no longer call ME baal you will call me husband, i will wipe all the names of baal from your lips.. baal was one of those “gods” but god is clearly saying its all him and they are worshipping him wrong. Imo
Take a shot every time Dan says nihilo. 😂
Oh no 🙈 I had to delete my “take a shot” comment cause yours was first
@@Cornelius135 The more the merrier! 😄
Was just thinking that too 😂
I take a shot every time he references univocality. I am now dead.
Thank you for all you do. I am glad you’re there helping ME digesting information from a objective point of view. 🙏🏼🥰
Yes, the bible is thoroughly polytheist. I must admit I started to find it more interesting after I realised that
Same. Sunday school doesn't really highlight the multitude of Canaanite gods the Israelites worshipped or the genocides the Yawists commit to wipe out these opposing cultures.
Michener does an interesting job in "The Source", trying to explain the emergence of monotheism in Canaan when there were so many other choices around for them. It's not "factual", but helped me with understanding the possible development of monotheism.
Monotheism came, in the end, from cultural isolationism. Middle East, as many other parts of the world, had a complete pantheon of distinct deities. As usual, each deity reigned over a specific domain (the heavens, the underworld, the sea, etc). Some groups identified themselves with a particular God: for example Athens honored Athena, while Sparta honored Ares. They still recognized all other gods, and made sacrifices when convenient (sacrifices to Poseidon to have a good naval endeavour, etc)
Ancient hebrews were seminomadic people living in a land dominated by farming people. There are always conflicts when that happens, because landowners don't want people crossing, and probably pillaging, their fields, and when most of the land has an owner, nomadism becomes unsustainable. Ancient hebrews grew resentful of all other cultures living in that land, and from that hatred and the fear of cultural assimilation, promoted their cultural god, from just one god, to the most important one, and then, to the only one.
They also made up a a epic for themselves, where they escaped slavery both from Egypt in the south and Babylon in the north, and conquered the land inbetween, all thanks to their more powerful god.
Not all Jews were monotheists even during the Qumran days.
At least one copy of Deuteronomy has Yahweh and the other national gods as subordinate gods to El Elyon.
The text of the Pentateuch, as well as the Prophets, is very clear that people, even (proto-)Jews, believed in multiple deities. The exhortations for Jews/Hebrews are all about _worshipping_ the (one) god who redeemed them from Egypt.
The idea that Jews were actually monotheists was retrojected at a much later period. Possible late Second Temple era, or a bit earlier.
I've heard some practitioners of Judaism identify with Monolatry, in that they recognize other gods (or at least don't deny them) but they only have covenant or worship with one. Which I think makes sense with the Bible.
Monolatry was certainly a phase in the history of Judaism, but the post-exilic Genesis 1 and Deutero-Isaiah are monotheistic works that don't leave any space for other gods.
Which Jewish group is this?
All those books talk about is exclusive worship, @@Achill101.
Exclusive worship has absolutely NOTHING to do with monotheism.
We aren't concerned Dan. Your content are some of the only explanations I really trust. You don't have an agenda, just "Think people"!
Everyone has an agenda!
That said, I also put alot of trust/value into Dan's reasoning and explanations.
There is no God but Allah. This is the pure monotheism. There aren't other gods out there. These are just names and imaginations as the Quran says. To say that monotheism was developed in the enlightment era is simply ignorant or dishonest.
Shush.
Happy to see another video, Dan. I recommended you to my mom. She is Protestant, by denomination, and I do think that she would find what you say interesting.
@@MrMortal_Ra Your sentence is missing some verbs.
@@MrMortal_Rafrom the protestants I know most of them are pretty chill, it's mostly catholics that are the crazies. At least around here.
As soon as I heard that creator pronounce "omni-POH-tint" I knew it was gg's.
Amazing Dan! Thank you for your work in this and sharing it.
While Dan is correct on all of this as far as I can tell, I'm not sure the Great Cairo Hymn of Praise/Great Hymn to the Aten is a great source to prove this point as it was written during and for the Armana Heresy.
Although I personally view Atenism as henotheistic, it is often described as monotheistic (or at least monolatristic) and thus isn't an iron-clad example of non-monotheistic writing.
If you actually say "omni potent," just stop everything else, please. You have no standing to continue any argument.
I've listened to a lot of religion scholars on RUclips and one thing i haven’t heard mentioned is that the god presented in the Old Testament is specifically the god of the Jews/Israelites, not the god of all the peoples of the world. There's mention of taking care of HIS people and often at the expense of other nations, cities or tribes. So he might be the only god for the "chosen people" but he can’t be the only god. It's not till the New Testament that his nature is changed and he becomes the god of everybody. Pretty strong evidence for me that we create our gods and not the other way around.
Even the God of New Testament (I prefer the term Gospels) is a Jewish God. In fact Christianity choose to slowly being monotheistic, probably due to Greek philosophers and Gnostics
I believe there is a verse in Deuteronomy that states that El gives Yahweh a portion of the land, in this case Israel, to rule
Dan has enumerated on this multiple times over the course of his videos. I genuinely recommend just going to his channel and hitting the "Play all" button under the videos tab. It'll take you a while to get back to the near-beginning of the channel, but Dan mentions a few times about the children of "Elohim".
So because zeus is the most powerful god and all others are lower gods, then the Greeks were monotheistic?
The guy arguing that the bible is monotheistic clearly doesn't understand what monotheism is.
Creators owning themselves is always fun!
You're correct about most of this, but the philosophical monotheism you're talking about isn't as modern as you're implying - it's found in Plato, Aristotle, and subsequent Platonic and Aristotelian schools of Greek philosophy that were very influential on both 2nd Temple Judaism and early Christianity.
The Aramaic translation by Onkelos moved away from corporeal translations long before Maimonides, but Dan is correct that it did not become almost universally accepted dogma in Jewish thought until then.
7:36... TO THE WINDOW!!!... TO THE WALL!!! Till the sweat drop down my 😅 lol
Sorry I couldn't help myself lol
Love all your vídeos btw
Its a hard pill to swollow for Xtians, but the bible is not monothestic, because monotheism means that only one god exists. The whole divine council consists of many gods. So there are many gods in the bible even if they are not the one worshipped by Israel. Trinitarians also worship 3 beings. The father is not the son, the son not the father and both are not the HG. The son also has a God, the father is his God.
Trinitarians do not worship 3 beings. The whole trinity philosophy emerged later in Christian history by which point monotheism is already rooted, and emerged as a way to reconcile the nature of Christ and the Jewish God in an explicitly monotheistic context
@@ihavenojawandimustscream4681 these are 3 beings by definition. The father is not the son, the son not the father and both not the hg. They dont worship the father alone or the son alone. These are different beings. The father is the God of Jesus Christ. That's not monotheistic. The bible is also not monotheistic
@@JopJio yeah, they don't worship the son alone or the father alone because otherwise that would be polytheism. The reason why the three is always invoked together is because according to the trinitarians all three are part of the same Divine substance (homoousious) this is different than say the Hindu Trimurti where Brahma, Shiva and Vishnu have their own individual rites
@ihaveno this would be monaltry. Unitarians don't see Jesus as God and worship only the father as God but the bible itself is not monotheistic because there are many gods. So I am arguing from a bible perspective where it doesn't say anything about a substance or the three as one God. Jesus also has a God, the father is his God. So this polytheism. We have 3 different beings, one the God of the other but all 3 are worshipped. And we can clearly see why this concept was attractive to Gentile Christians, we find similar concepts in ancient Rome or ancient Greece or Egypt
@JopJio That's not how Trinitarianism works though. They are three persons of one being which is God. It's not three separate distinct beings. Also the Bible isn't monotheistic or polytheistic because it's a book lol. It doesn't have any beliefs. What you mean to say that polytheism can be seen in the Old Testament. However in the New Testament it's quite apparent that Judaism had evolved to be monotheistic much in the same way that they also developed a concept of hell whereas before there was only the underworld.
Maybe the reason this is tough for folks to grasp is because the word "henotheism" isn't more commonly known? I'm not sure how anyone reads the Torah without realizing the Israelites in that text believe in the existence of other gods besides theirs.
They were henotheistic before King Yōʾšīyyāhū's reign over Judea, then they became monoltaristic.
Again we get into the weeds when we talk about gods and hierarchy.
In Ezekial 8, 12 - 14. Ezekial is having a vision on the banks canal that abutts the Tigris river. The temple is destroyed, but his god is showing him a vision of a woman at the steps of the temple crying to Tammuz. In fact there is a Jewish month of Tammuz.
Whereas in Judges it is difficult to unweave the near-eastern and mesopotamian beliefs in the text because of the pejorative spin later writers put on the accounts, here in Ezekial his god is recognizing the tears to Tammuz.
The problem here that Abrahamic faiths have is that these spurious references to gods are not singular devotions per-say, but a system of belief.
How to understand this belief I will use a mystical construct.
Imagine we had a world that was bichromatic, imagine we only could see yellow and blue.
So if we imagine mesopotamia over time we had rising from the mud of SE IRAQ, cities.
There might be a couple of settlements, then those settlements grow in size, then more settlements appear. . . . .then finally cities, then confederations of cities, then dynasties, then transcontinental dynasties.
So if we use our Yellow filter we see the rise of tribal chiefs, chieftains, lugal, major lugal, dynastic leaders and so on.
So if we use our Blue filter we see shaman, the priests, then high priests, then high priests of dynastic gods, visiers, etc. And underlying that we have some old sprites, like Apsu, and then some gods appear and they kill off the sprites, the a civilization god appears, and his allied cities god rise up the ranks, and a number of gods appear under each of these. Then you have dynastic supreme gods like Istar, then Marduk, than Asshur (though it seems Asshur preceded Marduk) and they assume the names and qualities of other older gods.
So what we see is that events in viewed in the blue filter mirror those in the yellow filter and the world, green, harmonizes those two. That is the nature of elevational differences within the divine sky (blue) relative to the divine or sprite filled earth (yellow).
As the fate of peoples ebbs and flows, so do their gods, gods die. Asshur died, Marduk died, for the most part 'l died. Thousands of gods that rose out of the mud, died with the misfortunes of the iron age, antiquity, and the muslem conquest. When the name of the god was no longer called into, the god was dead. And so, we see, god belief is a very human thing, and from a mystical point of view, these beliefs are internal often mystical, experiential (like Ezekiel) but then exoterically presented. That process is invariably interpreted through the eyes of the Mystic. And so interpretation by non-mystics is fraught with problems.
It is from this heirarchy that Ezekial lays out a new, occult, view of heaven. His particular goal is not to get rid of the other gods, who has fallen in rank but hangs on his belief. In Ezekiels name we see that 'l still has meaning to at least his parents. But Yahweh has fallen, the other gods have meaning to his people and they are forgetting about his beloved land's god.
And so who is Tammuz? Tammuz is the demigod, husband of Ishtar, sent to the underworld because of his infidelity, but given a reprieve for 6 months a year. His mortal status relieved by his untimely death with a promise of eternal resurrection paints him as a dying and rising, the second of two, gods. Yahweh would be the dying and rising god, his fortunes falling with those of Jerusalem in Babylon, and rising with the Exiles leaving in Persia.
Tammuz was part of the system, Yahweh was part of the system. Tammuz was Bad Tibera, Yahweh was Jerusalem and the lands to the SSE.
Isra'el was born out of a system of colonies original built for trade westward, colonies like Urushalim, outposts like Beth lahmu, and ritual sites like Beth El. All of these have ties to the dawn of civilization in the east. But for centuries Egypt ran these places, and then Egypt retreated and they tried to emulate the system (yellow and blue), but eventually became petty kingdom, as happened at the end of the late bronze age collapse. In that context nomads from Arava and beyond appeared and assumed positions of power and elevated the status of their god YHW_ . Yahweh was elevated in the heavenly heirarchy by its believers, which in Samaria ebbed and flowed. In Judea it Ebbed under Hezekiah and Yosiah, and flowed during the reign of his second son, and all but disappeared during exile. This is the nature of the old gods. All once powerful, but their fortunes went the way of their lands.
Here is the nature of belief exposed through the long haul of human civilization, we project into the heavens what we experience as divine, try to convince others of its divinity, but as history shows every divine that has come up, has fallen down, the overwhelming majority of bronze age gods have died, but the heirarchy, so admired, has not. All the gods that appear unchanging in ones lifetime, are in fact always changing, rising in one life, dying in another. We project what is ours onto gods, neglecting the source and polishing the idol.
I like this description you have laid out. It explains much of history. The spiritual knowledge was never to fully be understood literally but, as you have said, basically through the eyes of the mystic. There's a reason for something like, "Eyes to see" or "Ears to hear." This never meant the physical eyes and ears, but those who had senses attuned to the non-physical.
@@kalinora3901 But unfortunately, Yeshu was trapped in his system of piety. Elaine Pagels does a good job of redressing this in her comparison of the gospels of John and Tomas, each trying to capture in their own way what was left of "Jesus" mysticism after the Temple fell. Its not a bad theology that she develops in that approach.
The problem from a christian perspective is when you go looking for the "spiritual" basis there is no objective stop point, because the mysticism in the NT is tied to near eastern mysticism. Paul for instance seems to be inspired by Hekhalot mysticism, which is at least as old as Ezekial. Revelations appears to tie itself to Merkaval, again has roots in the exilic system. If you follow the threads backwards you end up in middle bronze age mesopotamia trying to decide what aspects of these stories are mystical and what part part of the city-state apparatus. Im pretty convinced that the Apkallu sages were a mystical cult within Enki devotion, much like monks they sought out far off places for inspiration.
There's nothing like it when someone pulls out a dictionary or the stanford encyclopaedia to make a point. It's as if they these resources are prescriptive, rather than descriptive, and that there's nothing else to be learnt about a concept that isn't in the dictionary definition.
My memory on this is fuzzy and I'm too lazy to look into it, but I would have thought that the doctrine of monotheism (basically what is quoted here from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) was pretty thoroughly elaborated much earlier than the 17th century, in the 11th century by Islamic scholars like Al Ghazali and Avicenna (Ibn Sina). Something to look into in any case. I do recall that Islamic theology and philosophy was very influential for medieval Christians such as Aquinas.
There's got to be some context missing from that quotation he shows, because while the monotheism aspect isn't badly described, it's a really weird take on theism. Many old pagan beliefs wouldn't even qualify as theistic. The "omnipotent, omniscient goodness" is very monotheistic approach to theism.
Later Hellenistic philosophy (and some other traditions) leaned in that direction, with "the gods" being treated as aspects of some supreme godhead, but many early polytheistic religions just didn't do that at all. Their gods weren't omniscient, omnipotent or even necessarily good.
And we see a lot of that in the Hebrew Bible, if we read it critically.
I love that Dan brings up a point that historians also constantly have to fight against: bringing modern lenses to older texts. We're constantly taught that we have to place the works within the time they were written. Thanks for reminding people of this very crucial detail.
I agree that the bible is definitely not monotheistic. Of course, I'm not a real bible scholar.
I have zero concerns with your content about God(s) and think you're a rather no-nonsense critical thinker. The kind of person I respect and admire, and am attracted to intellectually. It's ok of course, with me - and I don't count anyway regarding any personal spirituality you have. It's all good. As an atheist, I love and appreciate the kind, calm, loving and gentle Christians. Most of the world does like kindly, gentle believers even of disagreement.
By his argument, pretty much every religion of the eastern Med and Mesopotamia was "monotheist", because all of them included precisely this sort of "lesser god" hierarchy he's trying to establish as "monotheist". Like: Zeus is just explicitly "The King of the Gods" and "God of Gods" as early as the Iliad, and this formulation has a loooooong history in Egypt and Mesopotamia even before the earliest examples of it in Olympian belief.
In 1st Corinthians Paul seems to be agnostic when it comes to other gods and/or he simply views other gods as “demons”. I think one could easily read monotheism into what he is expressing here even though I don’t know what Dan or other scholars may say on this matter.
If you truly believed what you say you believe, then you would not have the need to defend your opinion.
A Dona is...a woman...in Italian..you haven't even begun to break through the veil..let alone the crust... scholars..Pharasis....hilarious
Monotheism as found in philosophy (Modern, medieval or ancient) doesn't depend on the concept of creation ex nihilo. It just doesn't. You'll find plenty of theist philosophers, particularly ones drawing on Aquinas and Aristotle, who explicitly insist that their concept of God (Or at least their theistic arguments) are compatible with the universe having existed for eternity.
Hi Dan. Do you have a take on / explanation for which commandments Are the "real" ten commandments? Someone pointed out that the ten commandments I learned in church aren't the ones God calls the ten commandments in the Bible. I looked it up and the commandments he called the ten were things like keeping the feast of weeks and not boiling goats in mother's milk. I'm confused how we get the other ten commandments in so many places when the text seems to disagree.
Well, in one sense this is great but in another … I'm not getting it. Creation _ex nihilo_ in my (modern!) mind comes from worrying about mathematical induction, and worrying about the chain of “… and where did _that_ come from…” with which physics _still_ struggles (I think because physicists generally suffer from an inescapable intuitive physicalisation of the sub-physical, as it were, but that's another rant). But I'm not sure I buy the argument that the absence of this one, late-developing, thread means that these earlier examples are not meaningful “monotheistic”. Rather, I have the distinct impression (and goodness knows I am not the professional in this field that you are, so please correct me if I'm wrong) that across time and across the world we see a tendency for certain systematising intellectuals to go, you know what? Reality is really very coherent and perhaps all these different effects have a common cause; perhaps all their gods are descendants/aspects/projects/… of a single divine principle. Or even … perhaps there's only one God after all, and these other things are merely stories we tell ourselves?
At the very moment you introduce the discussion of infinite regression in creation, that kind of thinking will crystallise into “monotheism” in your sense, because the number of ways in which founding a chain of causes can be integrated with an omnipotent deity is limited (there's the unsatisfying unmoved mover solution, which in some sense deals with origin of things but not the origin of complexity, and the more satisfying meta-creation solution, which requires a great deal more technical sophistication; and I suppose there are some exotic solutions where causation is not in fact a chain-perhaps those lead somewhere interesting? But other than simple cycles, I've never heard them discussed.). Sorry, off on a tangent. What I'm really trying to say is, I don't think we need to focus on _ex nihilo_ because if we introduce a notion of premonotheism which is the usual definition minus _ex nihilo_ we get something coherent that extends uniquely to _ex nihilo,_ suggesting that the _ex nihilo_ condition itself was not really required to draw the distinction.
To put that differently, if we had a conception with a single “big” god but, say, a cyclically eternal universe, would it benefit our understanding to identify that as non-monotheistic, because it has a different _creation_ rather than a different _creator?_ I certainly don't think that's how the general public understands matters. I have the distinct impression that the general public doesn't wrestle with infinite regression very much at all.
I would, of course, be delighted if you correct me. Love your work here.
Modern Christians are so slippery in a strange emotional / manipulative way …. the smooth jazz fits with this guy so perfectly
Bad historians with RUclips accounts, playing with matches.
These conceited people with no understanding trying to debate actual scholars really get my goat. I thought it was something that only happened in discussions about vaccines--I am a virologist and immunologist--but apparently it is ubiquitous.
“Doesn’t mean there can’t be demons referred to as lower gods”
So he would still believe there are no other gods and thus monotheism. : /.
If you claim the “other gods” are fakes what would that change about what Dan said? Lmaooo
I think if you believe in the one God while acknowledging the existence of "lower gods", you're not monotheistic you're henotheistic, which I take to be biblically accurate
Yeah there is no defense here. The building was about 400 feet away, within the line of sight from the podium and buildings in which snipers were mounted. This is an obvious area to defend, and it was left wide open. Combine that with the trump administration asking for more security and being denied. I don’t want to be a conspiracy theorist but it is tough not to ask why such an obvious vacuum of security existed.
I also wonder how did the kid know where to go, even if you scope the area out first how did he know that this building would be open and not monitored. It’s just hard for me not to see conspiracy’s here.
Geneisis 1-26 God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.god says let us make man in our image. So where does the "let Us" , "Our image" and "Our Likeness"come from?
Not to mention, who are the sons of God who married the daughters of man just before the flood? Genesis 6:1-4.
If you have studied a foreign language, many of them have a more formal version of "you" that either shows respect to an individual or refers to multiple people. English had this feature in the past (thee was singular and you was plural / formal, I think,) and it also had what was called the "royal we." There are other places in the Bible that refer to the existence of other gods, but that is not one of them.
Hell, the fact that they refer to god as "he" would imply not only the existence of "she" gods, but an entire species of gods with their own evolutionary history.
@@justinwatson1510 So - who was he talking to ? Also , when he said "And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as ONE OF US, to know good and evil" (Gen. 3:22) - - -
@@tezzerii I was talking about Islam. I understand that it is a fanfiction of Judaism, but Mohammad had no way of knowing that Judaism started in a polytheistic culture. Hell, Christianity is a fanfiction of Judaism and most Christians don't even know that. Either way, pointing out the use of "we" by god to a Muslim is a pointless endeavor; I know because I've tried.
What would the very early Catholic church think or differ from the Catholic church today
I am astounished by many of the revelations that McClellan brings. Amazing.
God isn’t singular, plural, mono,poly…. Human egocentricity much? ❤
The only thing I would like clarified on this point about monotheism being a post-enlightenment philosophy is the concept of ''tawhid'' in Islam.. Is it not far older than Henry More's conception? And is it not as a strict definition of monotheism as More's concept?
here is a semantics specialist:
the more i watch these videos- when i see Dan but hear Inigo Montoya...
"you keep using that word... i do not think it means what you think it means..."
There is no need to deny scholarship about the Bible in order to believe in it... Michael Heiser and NT Wright and Tim Mackie & the Bible Project all follow the scholarship, yet still find Divinity in Scripture. As do I, for that matter.
If we love the Creator, how can we reject His Creation? Just because the Bible is a book doesn't mean it is any less inspired a book. But inspired and inerrant are not the same...
Many books are inspired. I find the Big Book of AA an inspired and inspirational work, but that doesn't mean it wasn't also written by a bunch of old drunks trying to get better. That's the best part of Scripture, God reaching us through imperfect means, through flawed human hands. If He used the Biblical authors to reach so many despite *their* flaws, what can we do if we listen to Him now, with our own flaws and flawed understanding-- but perhaps greater knowledge and compassion?
That is an amazing promise, and by making of the Bible an inerrant text, we lose it. If we make of the Bible an idol, how are we better than pagans, falling for a piece of wood and paper? Or a golden calf?
These are all great. Can't wait to see the next list!
The Bible proves The Bible. **rolls eyes** Or should I say, my church's Bible proves my Bible.
It's kind of like how warriors most likely saw Mars or Tor as their main obeject of worship and developed the doctrines of only warriors get to dine with the gods in the afterlife. I don't think women or farmers had much use for that kind of creed same a these so called meek don't have much use for the doctrine of christs apocalyptic war.
Does dude's microphone have an illuminated color-changing panel on it?
Thanks Dan! Question: have you ever debated or responded to the books by Dr Jason White (hosts the dividing line, a reformed Baptist podcast)?
SATAN IS A GOD !!! I know a lot of people don't want to admit it, and it probably doesn't say so 8n the bible. But even if you go by the definition of what a God was when the Bible was being written, Satan falls into that definition. So if you follow the Bible and believe what it tells you, then you believe in at least two gods
I wish I could hear anything that the guy is saying
I must have missed it: why is creation ex nihilo required for monotheism?
If there is only one God who *didn’t* create everything else, where did it come from? The implication of monotheism is that the one God is the only eternal, all-present being, so if there is pre-God “stuff” around, then that “god” isn’t really the God of Monotheism
If monotheism originates in the 17th century, does that mean Islam is not monotheistic in your view?
Henotheism is right there in the pages.
I don't believe in magical fairy tales.
Isn't the bible more like henotheistic? Or is there a better term?
Dan is the man!
*Not **_ex nihilo_*
When Elohim began to shape/create:
the land was formless and empty and darkness was over the face of Tehom and the spirit/wind/breath of Elohim was hovering over the (sur)face of the waters…
So there was already formless land, Tehom/sea and “the waters”.
The land was tohu bohu... Very difficult term to translate
People worshipped and praised gods attempting to obtain favor, just like today. Our former president behaves just like those Bronze Age gods. He expects constant praise and worship too. Fortunately, he will perish and leave us.
What is with commenters and ridiculously blabbering their own political beliefs in where they don't belong?
Dan, I understand that the Bible doesn't elaborate a philosophical framework of creation ex nihilo, but in the first chapter of Genesis when God creates the heavens and the earth and speaks the various parts of creation into being, it certainly seems like he is creating out of nothing, at least to a layman like me. Can you explain? Thank you!
Well, in Genesis, God creates the world and universe from water, so I don't think that's creation ex nihilo
Left when your friend read off screen
I'm a little confused. I'm not sure I'm convinced that strict monotheism was developed simply in the 17th century. Especially given the debate around Jesus in the third century whether or not he was God. Wouldnt it make more sense that the reason why the Trinity was invented was specifically because Christians of that time believed in a strict monotheism, and when Jesus is called God in the New testament they were confused because there is only one God.
That theory makes no sense as Thomas Aquinas lived in the 13th century and taught the same thing. Early Christians took some time to understand the Trinity because they were monotheists who realized God came in the flesh, while submitting to God the Father. It took some time to understand this, but looking back at the Old Testament with this revelation multiple divine persons are visible.
What is the Basement Cat then, smart guy?
Cook Dan, cook!!!🔥🔥🔥
How is “created all things” not synonymous with creation ex nihilo? Not arguing, asking to understand the difference.
Because something existed before. Usually it's water or night or chaos.... Creation ex nihilo imply that only 1 god existed for eternity. Usually many mythologies tell that the creator god is born from Chaos, night, even an egg (Chinese/Corean mythos).
@@karldehaut thank you!
@@johna1427 You're welcome
@@johna1427 If we read Genesis God is never described as being absolutely alone, in short the only reality. There is always another element like tohu-va-bohu
You said in the video that you’ve been debating with Jews and Christians for over 20 years. Are any of these available for us to watch?
I think he means through published articles, not face-to-face.
The bible denies existence of other gods. Did you ever read the dead sea scrolls
Deuteronomy 32:8-9 (Dead Sea Scrolls)
When Elyon divided the nations, when he separated the sons of Adam, he established the borders of the nations according to the number of the sons of the gods. Yahweh’s portion was his people, [Israel] his allotted inheritance.
Elyon is the head Canaanite god.
In charge of 70 gods of the 70 known countries. Including Yahweh.
Let us not forget this:
The First Commandment is recorded in Exodus 20:3: “You shall have no other gods before Me.”
Acknowledging other gods exist.
Yes, later in the bible Yahweh gets promoted to head god.
In Psalm 82, we see Yahweh not at the head of the pantheon, but later asked to assume the job of all gods. “Yahweh stands in the divine assembly of *El*. Among the divinities, he pronounces judgment… Arise O Yahweh, judge the world; for You inherit all the nations.”
According to Orthodox rabbis, "Elyon" ( עֶלְיוֹן ) is one of many names of the Elohim / God of Israel (Psalm 9:1-2 for example).
There are at least 7 various Hebrew names for the Creator in the Tanakh, and rabbis say there are many more, but it has been years since I studied this. * There are several Jewish Orthodox websites that go into detail on these names.
@@What_If_We_Tried Yahweh gets promoted in Psalms
"According to a reasonable (if radical) understanding of the original verse 8, when all gods in the world received their inheritance from a senior god appropriately named Elyon ([most] high), YHWH was a merely a minor deity.[16] YHWH subsequently raised Israel, making Himself a reputation as a senior and successful god among other nations and their gods. At the end of the poem (verse 43), whose original version is preserved in the scroll 4QDeutq and (in slightly different form which cannot be elaborated here) the Septuagint, all those gods are summoned to praise YHWH, the God of Israel, and acknowledge His greatness, similarly to the summons of Psalm 29:1-2.
הרנינו שמים עִמּוֺ,
והשתחוו לו כל אלהים.
Sing, O Heavenly beings (or: Heavens), with Him,
And bow to Him, all ye gods."
Credit:
Prof. Jonathan (יונתן) Ben-Dov
is George and Florence Wise Chair of Judaism in Antiquity at the University of Haifa, and senior lecturer of Hebrew Bible and Second Temple Literature. He is co-editor (with Seth Sanders) of the book Ancient Jewish Sciences and the History of Knowledge in Second Temple Literature (ISAW and New York University Press).
@@fordprefect5304 You're entitled to your opinion, of course, but as a non-religious person it's all mythology to me.
All 'other gods' can be interpreted as solely metaphorical, i.e., referring to the religious beliefs of pagan / polytheistic nations, and this is the position of Orthodox Rabbis, or it can be interpreted as you stated, and often is by textual critics, and/or liberal forms of Judaism.
Having said that, it's interesting to watch the tremendous efforts that Christian apologists, and Muslim Imams have to go thru in an effort to discredit the traditional Israelite / Jewish explanations of their bible (the Tanakh), and the Torah observant (Jewish Orthodox) post-apocalyptic view that 1) all the enemies of Israel will be destroyed, and 2) that their Beith HaMikdash (the Temple) will be rebuilt, and sacrificial services restored, and 3) the entire world, Jew and Gentile will be able to worship God at their Temple in Jerusalem. (look at Zechariah 14, and Isaiah 66 for example).
Contrast that POV, with conservative Christian, and Muslim post-apocalyptic perspectives in which all non-believers will burn in hell for eternity.
Dan like the root of his name, is a fair judge. It's always great to learn how to untangle the web of tradition, dogma and misinterpretation that so many apologists and preachers spread, without truly understanding much of it.
That person referring to Ireneaus as "early" Second Century I find amusing, Irenaeus was born about 130 AD and his career as writer is mainly associated with the last few decades of the century.
I agree that Monotheism strictly speaking isn't Biblical but for it seems different reasons. I am referring to The Trinity from my somewhat Stoic perspective when i argue that not Angels. I am currently undecided on Creation Ex Nihilo, that sounds like something means different things to different people. The Middle Platonist Monotheism of the Second Century you are referring to however I view as coming form Egypt, from what the Egyptians believed about Ptah and Atum.
WHO DOES JESUS’ POWER AND SPIRIT BELONG TO?
WHO DOES JESUS SERVE? WHO IS THE FATHER OF THE FIRSTBORN-PROTOTOKOS, MEANING ‘BIRTH ORDER, FIRST CHILD BORN’-OF EVERY CREATURE? WHOSE POWER WAS DONE IN JESUS WHEN HE RAISED HIM FROM THE DEAD AND SET HIM AT HIS OWN RIGHT SIDE? WHO PUT JESUS FAR ABOVE EVERYONE AND EVERYTHING FOR THE REST OF ETERNITY (EPHESIANS 1:20-22)? WHO SAID “THIS IS MY BELOVED SON” (MATTHEW 3:17)? WHO’S POWER AND SPIRIT THAT RAISED JESUS FROM THE DEAD WILL ALSO QUICKEN ALL WHO BELONG TO HIM (ROMANS 8:11)? WHO IS THIS ONE SPIRIT THAT DOES ALL THINGS? WHO LOVED US SINNERS SO MUCH THAT HE WOULD GIVE HIS ONLY BEGOTTEN SON SO THAT WE MAY HAVE ETERNAL LIFE? ONE WORD: GOD.
Usually it's apologetics who use caps... You're dismissed... Sorry it's a place of learning real stuff studied by academics... Not propaganda.
@@karldehaut NOT INTERESTED IN YOUR APPROVAL.
THE WORD OF GOD SAYS THE FATHER IS GREATER THAN ALL (JOHN 10:29). IT ALSO SAYS THAT GOD MADE ALL THINGS BY/THROUGH JESUS AND THAT NO MAN CAN SEE GOD EXCEPT BY JESUS. JESUS IS THE WAY, TRUTH, AND LIFE TO THE FATHER…WHO IS GOD:
JESUS IS MOST CERTAINLY NOT GOD. TO SAY HE IS WHEN HE SAID HE WASN’T IS BLASPHEMY.
"JESUS SAITH UNTO HIM, I AM THE WAY, THE TRUTH, AND THE LIFE: NO MAN *COMETH UNTO THE FATHER,* BUT BY ME." JOHN 14:6
"GOD HATH IN THESE LAST DAYS *SPOKEN UNTO US BY HIS SON,* WHOM HE HATH *APPOINTED HEIR OF ALL THINGS,* BY WHOM ALSO *HE MADE THE WORLDS.”* HEBREWS 1:2
"JESUS ANSWERED, IF I HONOUR MYSELF, MY HONOUR IS NOTHING: IT IS *MY FATHER* THAT HONOURETH ME; OF WHOM YE SAY, THAT *HE [THE FATHER] IS YOUR GOD:"* JOHN 8:54
"I CAN OF MINE OWN SELF *DO NOTHING:* AS I HEAR, I JUDGE: AND MY JUDGMENT IS JUST; BECAUSE *I SEEK NOT MINE OWN WILL, BUT THE WILL OF THE FATHER WHICH HATH SENT ME."* JOHN 5:30
"BUT TO US THERE IS BUT *ONE GOD, THE FATHER,* OF WHOM ARE ALL THINGS, AND WE IN HIM; AND *ONE LORD JESUS CHRIST,* BY WHOM ARE ALL THINGS, AND WE BY HIM." 1 CORINTHIANS 8:6
@@annie5441Shut up, you loony.
Ya shouldnt have brought up the relatives,if you’re pass ing as an orphan..😂🤷
Interesting as always - Is it possible to trace when did Judaism become monotheistic ?
I love how you calmly and succinctly dismantle theistic arguments.
McClellan says he's a Mormon, that means a theist. Many arguments about what the bible says don't have to be connected with a certain faith position.
You realize he is a theist right? He's not dismantling theistic arguments, he's countering false ideology and misinformation. And sometimes he does a good job, and sometimes he shoehorns in his own bias...
@@markwildt5728 What bias?
@@Achill101 Yeah, well, Mormons are definitely NOT traditional Christians. They are much more like early (1st century) Christians, although Christianity was already splintering, at that point.
For example, they take Jesus at his word when he constantly defers to the authority of the Father (even going so far as saying the Father is "greater than I"), and believe that the Supreme Being is the Father, but that Jesus, the Holy Ghost, the angels, and others are part of the "Gods" or Divine Council. In a similar vein, Mormons also reject the traditional "mystical" Trinity (which, in mainstream philosophy is considered logically impossible).
Mormons also pretty much reject all of mainstream Christians' metaphysical assumptions, e.g.--Creation ex nihilo, Manichaistic duality (the belief that matter is evil, unlike the "immaterial"). Even God the Father is a material, resurrected Being, just like Jesus.
Mormons are even in agreement with science that all things that exist in the universe is material, and the Doctrine & Covenants asserts that spirits are made up of "finer material"--a descent description of energy.
@@towardcivicliteracy - Mormons are certainly non-traditional when seen with a Christian eye, but they are still theists, aren't they? That was all I wanted to point out against Matthew's description.
. . . Thank you for your description of Mormonism. Some I had heard before, some was new to me. Right now, I'm interested more in the bible than in Mormonism.
Desert demons your fathers never knew.
Love your shirts, Dan.
Also, sometimes I roll in negative... Know that I appreciate and respect the work you do.
Have a horrible habit of starting my comments halfway through my thought process,
so you don't hear that part. I am doing a little better every day.
Man I got no patience for monotone guy reading a script into a technicolor mic
Imma just go ahead and assume he’s wrong
I like the "turtles all the way down" structure of this video :)
1:20 responding by citing your own peer reviewed article... cold.
What are your thoughts on the works from William Lane Craig?
I’m dying to hear you explain being LDS and a serious Bible scholar. These seems incompatible. If I may make a second request: how do you negotiate the Book of Mormon?
He identifies himself as Mormon in a cultural/familial context, not that he truly believes in the beliefs of the Latter Day Saints, as he often goes against them and says that he, himself, doesn't align with their own beliefs. And as well, he only shares the scholarly cónsénsus, nothing else, really, aside from an announcement of something on occasion.
Now we all know the reasons the Catholic Church were opposed to a Bible in the vernacular !
They imagined all the Faithful reading it and discussing it openly and fruitfully engaging positively with its complexity and uniting the faithful with God's clear and unambiguous message 😳🤔😂
No, they were opposed to having it freely available because manuscript copies were astronomically expensive and valuable because they had to be painstakingly copied by hand. That's why priests gave homilies at each Mass, to expose the faithful to readings from the Bible text and then explain them. Remember this was before the printing press, and it was the invention of the printing press that enabled the Protestant Reformation.
He not acknowledging it because he doesn’t know what she’s talking about!! He’s not a scholar of anything!!! And he has some bogus background with books. Theses people has to be stopped. Thank you Dan
Dear Dan
I was always under the impression that the New Testament described a paradigm that only recognises one God. Are there any passages within the New Testament that explicitly show us that the first Christians believed that other gods existed? And is it impossible to hold the view that there is only one God without the notion of creatio ex nihilo being a part of that concept? Not being a learned theological scholar in any of this - but it seems to me that despite being an atheist all my life, I have never considered creatio ex nihilo as the one crucial aspect of monotheim. Is there a difference between scholarly theological understanding and folk understanding of monotheism? Or have I just missed some glaring facts about the medieval period and have been entirely mistaken to believe that Crusaders marching off to Antioch regarded the number of gods that existed in a different way to how Scipio's men thought about that number more than a thousand years earlier?
Judaism developed from polytheism over monolatry to true monotheism. By the time of Jesus, Judaism was truly monotheistic.
@@Achill101
That seems to contradict what Dan is saying, if I've understood him right.
I suppose when he says 'the Bible' he could just mean the Jewish scriptures - but - and maybe I'm completely wrong - he said that monotheism as we understand it today did not come into being until at least the 2nd century CE, and maybe not until the 17th century.
I'm totally down with the Old Testament charting the evolution from polytheism and henotheism to monolatry...but I was under the impression like you that by the common era, the Jews were monotheists. Maybe monotheism precisely doesn't exist in the Jewish Bible, but that still leaves the New Testament, and so if first century Jews were monotheists, that would suggest the New Testament would be too, given it was written by 'Judeo Christians', or at least written for them.
@@Achill101 There is no evidence of your claim. Rabbinic Judaism, developed post the 1st century, is definitely monotheistic, but there is actually no evidence of a monotheisic Judaism prior to this. There is no textual evidence, and also no archaeological evidence either.
*And is it impossible to hold the view that there is only one God without the notion of creatio ex nihilo being a part of the concept?*
It is not. There are plenty of deists who hold this view.
*Is there a difference between scholarly theological understand and folk understanding of monotheism?*
Absolutely. Most non-scholarly monotheists are willfully uninformed, and get all their "knowledge" from what their local pastors regurgitate to them. Folks do not study theology. They are not taught theology. This is no different to how the type of "science" non-scientists learn in school has almost nothing to do with real scientific research as actually conducted by scientists in academia. Most non-scientists are thus, in this way, scientifically illiterate, and woefully unequipped to speak about any science at all.
You do realize Christianity could be considered a polytheistic religion with God the father, god the son, and god the holy spirit? They had fights about this and some current denominations do not recognize Jesus as god.
In addition, this was a religiously diverse group with many gods. the christian god was just one of many. The people didn't really have the word monotheist or polytheist like we do. They'd be like "That's Joseph and he worships the Jewish god" and "That's Catullus and he worships Bacchus as his house deity" sort of thing. So implicitly, they all thought that other gods existed, but we didn't have this idea that later came into being where "Bacchus isn't a god. He's a demon. My god is The god. And I'll kill you if you say anything else.."
(You might come across it if you spoke with a Hindu and you were trying to convert them. Ask me how I know. I had the very strange experience of this Hindu person showing me the place of honor they had put my Christ in... along with their household deities. Jesus was just one other god and, now, I understand the respect I was given. Back then,I was thinking..."You've defiled my religion". I have this impression that the early Christians and even the existing Jewish population never thought about monotheism and polytheism the way we look at it now. It's a modern idea.)
I'll use the analogy of fans. Let's take football because I like men in spandex tights and their fans. The ones who like the Dallas Cowboys are aware that other fans exist. But to be a fan of the Dallas Cowboys, you can't be fans of another football team. It was all about getting followers to follow your team. Afterwards, when you had enough followers, you would start to disqualify other teams from the NFL by saying.. "Are the NY Giants really a football team? They're college league. Not NFL league. and .. voila...you've started the process of eliminating existing competition for worship that will result in only the Dallas Cowboys being considered the "one true football team".)
To put it simply.. we're applying a modern understanding of the terms monotheism and polytheism onto a culture that was immersed with many gods and many different fans of said gods. It was just "Don't talk to Bill about the Dallas Cowboys. He's a Packer's fan. He'll kill you if you suggest that Dallas will win." (And then, you do just to see Bill blow up and insult the Cowboys like only a fan of a rival team would do.)
*Please note.. all teams have been changed. I reserve the right to modify this analogy and use other teams and sports. And please.. for the love of your life.. never anger a kpop fan group. We must be very very careful with those fandoms.
We can also look at the discussion about the trinity. One of the most awkward concepts to be thought up. I swear that concept was made up to figure out who was a true believer and who was pretending. Three in one? Like when the cartoon teams robots merge to form a super robot? it's a messy incestuous idea.
“What do I mean then? That a thing sacrificed to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything? No, but I say that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons and not to God; and I do not want you to become sharers in demons. You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons; you cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons.”
1 Corinthians 10:19-21
“They made Him jealous with strange gods; With abominations they provoked Him to anger. They sacrificed to demons who were not God, To gods whom they have not known, New gods who came lately, Whom your fathers did not dread.”
Deuteronomy 32:16-17
There is no fundamental discontinuity on this issue between the old and the New Testament these verses which don’t even reference each other clearly convey the same thing. That the gods of other nations are really demons.
“I am the Lord, and there is no other; Besides Me there is no God. I will gird you, though you have not known Me;”
Isaiah 45:5
“Besides me there is no other God”
Seeming how Deuteronomy and exodus were written probably around the same time it would be pretty clear that the “gods” of the Egyptians really being demons makes total sense since contextually in the song Moses He is singing about is referring to the Egyptian gods calling them demons. Your claim that there is not “monotheism in the entirety of the Bible” is a claim no scholar would ever make except maybe a few fringe scholars. Most would assume it develops by the time of Isaiah but the truth is it’s throughout the entirety of scripture.
Sorry it's a common consensus. Except in some US religious universities. I advise you to read the bibliography
@@karldehaut the consensus in atheistic studies is there is a slow development of monotheism that ends up in the book of Daniel or Isaiah. It’s is almost unanimous that all scholars believe there is monotheism in the Bible at some point. Now I wouldn’t expect anyone who can’t see the fact that the scriptures which constantly predict the future for example Isaiah which says a man was going to be born of a Virgin who is God with us and would die to cover the sins of others which is undeniably written 700 years before someone just so happens to claim to be born of a virgin, claim to be God and die on the behalf of others to justify them they have to deny the clear divine inspiration of this because they are forming opinions under the belief that it’s impossible for it to be true.
You quote Deuteronomy 32 but leave out verse 8 and 9 where El divides the land amongst the gods and gives a portion, in this case Israël, to Yahweh to rule over. And when you create your own religion it's logical to call the other regional gods (not only Egyptian) false gods, demons etc
Sorry, I overlooked the point you were trying to make
@@KasperKatje your translation of that is pretty bad it says God divided the lands according to the number for sons of God like how each person goes down to represent a nation as opposed to your obscure understanding which says God divides the lands to lesser Gods. The following verse proves your wrong because he gives and example of how Jacob becomes a nation, just like Cain did and so on and so forth.
@Dan Maclelan, Does Maccabees 7: 28 not suggest creation ex nehilo or something like it?
No, that reflects the Aristotelian notion that material without form & function occupies a state of “non-being.” To impose form & function upon it is to move it into a state of “being,” thereby creating it. It’s not creation out of nothing, it’s the imposition of form & function on formless matter. This is the academic consensus regarding that passage and a couple passages in the New Testament.
@@maklelanI just realized that I can tag you like this. I’m eager to hear from you about the note from the NOAB and it has also occurred to me to ask you what book or other source(s) you would recommend on the scholarship about creation ex nehilo and monotheism and the Bible’s relationship to the two? I would express a preference for sources that account for the Apocrypha (2 Maccabees in particular). Thank you.
@@maklelanI also want to express my gratitude for the light you shed on all these topics. I have found your videos dispelling claims that Biblical prophecy and the Book of Revelation foretell events and wars happening today to be especially illuminating and valuable. Thank you.
@@34DaveRL The only note I see in the New Oxford Annotated Apocrypha states that Christians from Origen (born around the time the doctrine was created) and after understood it as a reference to creation ex nihilo. The best discussions on this are the following:
Gerhard May, Creatio Ex Nihilo
Jonathan Goldstein, "The Origins of the Doctrine of Creation Ex Nihilo"
James Hubler, "Creatio ex Nihilo"
Maren Niehoff, "Creatio ex Nihilo Theology in Genesis Rabbah in Light of Christian Exegesis"
Anderson & Bockmuehl, Creation ex nihilo
Markus Bockmuehl, "Creatio ex nihilo in Palestinian Judaism and Early Christianity
Hi Dan, I would love to see a video, maybe hard to make, in which you address the question of how you manage to maintain your faith commitments in light of all the uncertainty and revision of the holy texts. Because I can see how faith can be altered or weakened or even strengthened the more you study the texts. I'm assuming that you began your faith journey before you had all the facts, and I'm assuming that facts have influenced this journey, but I'm really curious how exactly. Maybe that's a wrong assumption, maybe your faith is completely independent of what Jesus actually said and the meaning of the texts, but I suspect they are intertwined
Ive thought about this as well, but wonder if he intends to avoid personal content on this page to prevent cross over into his scholarly work
He has stated in the past that this channel is exclusively to talk about the scholarly views of faith and not about himself.
@@howlrichard1028 I get that, so I'm wondering if he's done that on other channels ? Hes discussed some of his personal history on Mormon podcasts, and that's been really enlightening, but I dont recall him addressing the question i posed here
I'm dying to know about this apparent contradiction too. I just can't compute his academic approach with my (admittedly sketchy) conception of the Church of Jesus christ of latter day saints. @@txikitofandango
If you have had personal spiritual experiences, how do you put that into academic terms that can be supported by other sources? Or impartially replicated by others?
While I would agree that monotheism developed in the time the bible describes (9-3th century BC, from polytheism over monolatry to monotheism) and terms like omnipotent or omniscient are of later philosophical origin, but: isn't creation ex nihilo and God as a good God described in Genesis 1?
No. If you read the text carefully in Hebrew and in context, there are no signs of monotheism at all, nor is there any creatio ex nihilo. Creatio ex nihilo is a late theological invention that, via eisegesis, was read into the text many centuries after the text was written, not by Jewish theologians, but by Greek and Roman theologians.
@@angelmendez-rivera351 - Genesis 1 says God created all of the earth and the heaven. It doesn't say God created other gods or God took a turtle shell or similar and created the earth from it. That sounds monotheistic and creation ex nihilo to me. What do you understand under creation ex nihilo and monotheism that wouldn't be in Genesis 1?
@@Achill101 *Genesis 1 says God created all of the earth and heaven. It doesn't say God created other gods or God took a turtle shell or similar and created the Earth from it. That sounds monotheistic and creation ex nihilo to me.*
What Genesis 1:1-2 says is "In the beginning, Elohim[a] 'bara'[b] 'the heavens and the earth',[c] and the earth was 'tohu wa-bohu',[d] and darkness faced the 'tehom',[e] and the 'ruach'[f] of Elohim hovered/was hovering over the face of the waters;..." There are a couple of issues here.
To begin with: the word 'Elohim' is simply a generic plural word in Hebrew to refer to a collection of gods. It need not refer to a single god, and it need not refer to one specific god. There is no monotheism implied here in the text, and in fact, elsewhere throughout Genesis, such as in Genesis 3 and Genesis 6, polytheism is heavily implied, even in the English.
The word 'bara' is a word difficult to translate, because it is only ever used specifically when talking about the actions of Elohim in the text. Therefore, there is no exact translation. However, based on context, it is often translated by scholars as "ordered" or "separated." Scholars suggest in their research that, to be more precise, the act of 'bara' is the act of "fixing the destinies."
The 'heavens and the earth' are a common ancient Hebrew colloquialism. In ancient Hebrew cosmology, the cosmos was comprised of three parts: the heavens, the earth, and sheol. These were three layers of the cosmos inside the dome formed by the firmament, outside of which is the endless cosmic ocean known as 'tehom' in Hebrew and in other Near-Eastern cultures of the time. This is what in English gets translated as "the deep," and it is from this cosmic ocean surrounding the heavens, the earth, and sheol, that the water from Noah's flood emerged from.
'Tohu wa-bohu' is another phrase difficult to translate. Common translations render the phrase as "empty and formless," but the reality is, nowhere else in the Hebrew scriptures does the word "bohu" ever appear, and it probably has no meaning: it was probably coined solely for the sake of rhyming with 'tohu.' The word "tohu" means "wasteness."
The word 'ruach' is another one difficult to translate, because again, it is used far too rarely to actually know what the intended meaning of the word is. It is also used rather ambiguously, with very little elaboration. The most we can make out of it is that it refers to some manner of an invisible "force," but common translations use the word "spirit," probably because they are theologically motivated to do so, and not because of linguistic accuracy.
Difficult as some of these phrases are to translate, though, there is a clear theme being depicted here: there is a vast cosmic ocean facing the darkness, and Elohim, using something akin to verbal incantations, which we see starting with Genesis 1:3, separated and ordered this ocean, the tehom, into the three realms of the cosmos, and the various components inside the cosmos. Nothing about this suggests creatio ex nihilo. Sure, if you read the verse out of context, and with a bad translation, then it may give the impression of ex nihilo, but even in the English translation, nowhere is it explicitly stated that creation happened "from nothing," so what you are doing is nothing other than injecting your preconceptions into the text, rather than actually just reading the text for what it says.
@@Achill101 By the way, true 'creatio ex nihilo' would entail there existing a being, and nothing else, and the being manifesting all other things. Nowhere in the Bible is this concept depicted, because ancient cultures were philosophically sophisticated enough to have such a concept. The fact that the phrase we use, creatio ex nihilo, is in Latin, and not in Hebrew, should already give you an actual hint there.
@angelmendez-rivera351 - Genesis 1 uses Elohim, because it is part of the priestly source that adjusts the name of God to ages and, e.g., doesn't use Yaweh before it is revealed to Moses at the burning bush. The priestly source is monotheistic and so is Elohim in Genesis 1.
. . . I haven't learned Hebrew and cannot criticize your interpretation here, but I notice that you go from "Scholars suggesting..." to "It is clear...", a sleight of hand.