Oddly enough, when the Tetragrammaton appears in Exodus 6.3, the Latin Vulgate, instead of translating as the usual "dominus" (Lord), or "deus" (God), LITERALLY reads "adonai".
This actually answers one of my questions, can God be worshipped without knowing His name? Apparently, this is traditional. I still believe, however, that the God of Israel has grown impatient with the lack of the sacred rituals and (animal) blood sacrifices since the Fall of the Second Temple (or perhaps even the First), and has either withered away or wandered off. Patience isn't one of His virtues.
All the worship sent his way because he isn't specifically named by his worshipers goes into the general god worship sphere and thus ends up empowering other gods.
Hey Dan, what do you think of the work of Paul Wallis??? I’ve been watching a lot of his videos….amazing really makes you read and see the Bible in a different light
I have been waiting on a comment from Dan about Paul Willis and Mauro biglino works 😅😅😅... Very interesting stuff.. I Read a book from mauro: The bible is not a sacred book... Wonderful point of view
No Human Character Names rooted in YHWH, But Place Names rooted in YHWH ? Sounds like they moved into a new area/territory And adopted the god that had all this local stuff named after them
Agreed about the non-YHWH theophoric names in Genesis. Even the nation of Israel, Isra-EL, is named after El, not YHWH. Otherwise it could have been named Isra-YHWH lol
@@2besavedcom-7 I think that's a fair point. But even then it's telling that there's only one YHWH theophoric name, and "incidentally" it's the most important of the tribes historically speaking
Wouldn’t it make more sense for the God of Genesis to be El instead of Yahweh? Yahweh only inherited Israel when El decided he didn’t want to manage 70 nations by himself anymore. It makes sense that the God of Exodus would be Yahweh. This God works differently. He wants to come down and hang out with his people.
Does Dan have a video where he explains his pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton exclusively as “Adonai”? I’ve heard a lot of other people say “Yahweh” and I’m sure he has a good and interesting reason to NOT do that, but I don’t know where to find it 😅
I don't know if he has a video specifically about it, but he's mentioned it's because he's aware he has followers among Jewish communities who would be uncomfortable with him saying the Tetragrammaton out loud.
@@Screwtapellotrue, but that still doesn’t explain why he’s willing to say “Yahwistic” which is really not that far off from just saying the Name out loud.
I think it’s clear to us that these were attempts of later editors trying to paper over uncomfortable, tacit admissions in the text of polytheism in ancient Israel.
@@hardwork8395 Probably some of that, but also ancient and polytheistic deities often have multiple names. Sometimes there are variations based on region or portfolio like some of the ancient Greco-Roman gods, or the Greeks and Romans would equate their gods with those of other cultures (e.g. Thoth-Hermes, Zeus-Amon). The Norse gods have multiple names possibly because the poetic tradition is based on alliteration so poets want alternate names for their deities to make finding the right words easier. My understanding of Hinduism is pretty superficial so if anyone better educated can clarify please do, but Hindu deities have multiple incarnations or avatars with different names, etc. Even within the modern Abraham faiths there are multiple ways of referring to the One God.
@@digitaljanus The difference is that in Hinduism, the avatars are their own distinct individuals. They're not the same entity just using a different name.
Dan is overly generous to apologists. They will indeed try all the usual twists & turns and claim that a remotely possible solution is 'the truth' but they will never honestly admit that such scholarly observations are accurate. Because, ultimately, they are not interested in the truth or the facts, only in maintaining their beliefs; sometimes through genuine commitment but often for monetary gain as they fleece their flock.
I generally agree with you but I have a question. Wasn't the purpose of the bible to maintain boundaries and structure power? To marginalize those you thought should be marginalized... gentiles, slaves, the ritually unclean...The idea of a chosen people is pretty hardcore power structuring and definitely next level boundary maintenance. How is what the people you stitch with any different than the original intent of the bible? Didn't the original authors, editors, redactors, and margin noters all negotiate with existing text? Didn't they negotiate with the oral traditions before that? do we just hold modern people more responsible because they should know better or are there other reasons?
@@KaijuOfTheOpera First... you're... Do we agree that it is not inerrant, not univocal, and not inherently authoritative? Does the bible structure power and maintain boundaries? Did every person involved from the first oral traditionalist to the last person to read it 5 minutes ago, negotiate with the text that exist prior to them? Have I made anything up yet? How is any modern text negotiator any different than any other except that you prefer that negotiation and has it not always existed as a proof text for you preferred negotiations? Wasn't the only reason to write it down to actually preserve that proof text for your negotiations? That's why you claim famous authorship or record Vaticinium ex eventu, right? Why do negotiations closer to the primary source or previous negotiation with the text, carry more weight than any other?
No, the claim that the LORD reveals His name to Abraham is not supported by evidence. Even if we consider that the word 'Jehovah' was in use before Moses, it was not understood as the LORD's name. This is evident from Moses' question to the LORD for a name that he could impress upon the leaders and elders of Israel, now in Egypt, by whose authority he comes (Exodus 3:13-15). If the word 'Jehovah' was already in prominent use as you insist, why would Moses ask for it? The divine interactions of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were through the phrase 'God Almighty' (Exodus 6:3). It is not until Exodus 6:3 that the LORD settles the matter. I am not approaching the text with the presupposition that they must agree. The LORD did not reveal His name, "JEHOVAH" (Exodus 6:3), to any Israelite patriarch before Moses. But to understand this, you'd have to know there's a difference between the terms "Lord" and "God." Being able to distinguish between the terms "Lord" and "God" is the assurance by which I reject the supposition that those who seek to affirm Exodus 6:3 as truth need such a presupposition.
gabbygood6813 is incorrect. McClellan has stated elsewhere that he does so out of respect for those viewers who believe YHWH should not be pronounced/spoken.
Dan, I know you’re trying to be respectful of Jewish people by saying Adonai, but I think if you used the Jewish “ha Shem”, it would be much less confusing for beginners.
In some translations for genesis 4:26 says something like: "Then the men began to call the name of Jehovah (or The lord, or adonai or yahweh)" could you address that?
Not an expert to take my info with a grain of salt, but from my understanding that's basically just different ways of rendering the tetragrammaton. Some insist that it's "Jehovah" and so translate it that way, and English translations used broadly I've noticed just translate the name as "LORD" usually in all caps to indicate that it's the divine name
@@sammysamlovescats Use of "Lord" goes back over 2000 years. Though, the capitalization to distinguish the name from other uses of adonai was pioneered by William Tyndale in 1530.
@@2besavedcom-7 Actually from an Old English term meaning "loaf ward". But it's been the standard translation for the Latin equivalent of adonai this entire time.
Many of the Jews I know will neither speak nor write the name of God. Some of them will neither speak nor write the word “God”. “Adonai” is a term I have only heard non-Jewish scholars use. When I have discussed it with knowledgeable Jews, I was told that they no longer use Adonai because, after long association with God, it has acquired some of the same reverence due to other terms used to describe God. I think the preferred term is currently “Ha Shem” or “Hashem”.
That’s going to vary by denomination within Judaism, and “Adonai” works just fine for the majority of us. I’ve always been extremely impressed with how respectfully Dan handles Jewish sources and terms even when he is using them in explicitly Christian contexts.
@@Chriscastro22 That’s exactly what I was told. One of my friends described it as being similar to radiation. If you leave anything next to a strongly radioactive source for long enough, it will eventually become radioactive.
Some Bibles also replace all instances of YHWH with "the Lord" which probably goes against Psalm 86:12 but probably helps with the narrative of Jesus's divinity. Why would God make the Bible harder to read by including a name you shouldn't speak? Is saying it in your head while reading it also wrong?
*I love the grounded reality of this channel!!!* Retirement took a toll on my finances, but with my involvement in the digital market, $27,000 weekly returns has been life changing. AWESOME GOD❤️
Bible is supernatural. A relationship w Jesus is supernatural. I started a three days fast this morning. Thank you for this message. I'm 47yrs old $27,000 biweekly and I'm retired, this video have inspired me greatly in many ways!!!
After I raised up to 325k trading with her I bought a new House and a car here in the states 🇺🇸🇺🇸 also paid for my son's surgery (Oscar). Glory to God.shalom.
Do you know YHWH is preserved in quran... Shema yisrael YaHuWaH Elohinu YaHuWaH Echad Surah 112:1 Qul HUW Allah HUW Ahad.. Echad=Ahad in arabic. That is only used once in both quran and Torah to represent God oneness. Huw (also pronounce HUWA, IYYAHU, HUW)=YHWH (Yahuwah) Also jews ceased pronouncing this name during 2nd temple time so its impossible for Prophet Muhammad to know about original Shema which is in Surah 112.
Always fact check Dan with a conservative scholar, I agree with him sometimes, but if there is a logical explanation that is better than a far left liberal construct, Dan usually chooses the latter. I've seen this time and time again, he likes to stay on the far left skeptical edge.
@@gabbygood6813 correct, but the evidence and information on the subject he is able to present, including why the letters in the Tetragrammaton are spoken not breathed, does make it true, or at least far more likely to be true than something people just made up with no evidence. You seem to think I watch McClellan’s videos because I just agree with him blindly. In reality I watch them because he is very good at supporting his information and showing the process that leads scholars to these conclusions.
I understand why you say Adonai instead of Yhwh, but it is VERY confusing in videos where you talk about multiple names for god/s. You might want to consider explaining your Adonai/Yhwh switch-up in each video that deals with the name Yhwh. Or consider pronouncing Yhwh in such videos.
That is something I have considered plausible, even probable, for some time. It seems Job is older than anything, the origin stories quite possibly originated before that.
@@ronjones1414 most of the time I see the Bible claim that someone was named one thing but then changed their name to another, I believe that that character was originally from one culture and religion and then the people who wrote a book in the Bible just took that character and changed their name to their culture and then pretend they were the same person the whole time.
I heard recently (can’t remember from whom because I follow other biblical scholars besides Dan) that one hypothesis is that Abraham, Jacob/Israel and Moses were three distinct traditions (origin stories) that at a certain point were collated together and turned into a sequential narrative. And iirc they don’t think Abraham’s is the oldest story either. Definitely there’s signs in the text that there’s been a lot of editing going on.
@@pansepot1490 That's one of the reasons Dan has pointed out his suspicion that in the Abraham-Isaac story, Abraham did sacrifice Isaac and the Isaac's supposed rescue by an angel was a retcon to have another character from another foundation myth, who may or may not also have been named Isaac, be associated with him.
*Verses vs “I was not known…”* Abraham and others knew Yahweh’s name Genesis 4:1, 15:7; 21:33, 22:14; 24:35,40,42,48,50,51,56; 26:22; 27:20; 49:18; etc. … No, they didn’t Exodus 6:2-3 Yes, someone did: In Exodus 6:20, Yochebed probably means “Yahweh is glory”, so Moses’ own family knew Yahweh’s name.
Abraham's birthplace is given as Ur of the Chaldees (ʾŪr Kaśdīm), an anachronism as the Chaldeans (neo-Babylonians) were several centuries after any putative dates for Abraham's life. Is it possible that "Kaśdīm" could instead mean "Kassites," who were at least present in Mesopotamia much earlier, after the Amorite Babylonians before being conquered by the Middle Assyrians? (Please be kind: I'm not an expert. I only recognize a similarity in the names, and Kassite fits the timing of Abraham closer than Chaldees.)
I suspect that's just because the close to final renditions of books like Genesis were put together much later than when Abraham was supposed to have lived. Still anachronistic, but makes sense in that light
First of all Genesis 4:24 says, "If Cain shall be avenged sevenfold, truly Lamech seventy and sevenfold." So there’s no mention of a name of God anyhow. Secondly, there is no contradiction as God is known now by many names but at the time of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as “The Lord” who is still God Almighty. Exodus 6:3-4, “And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them. And I have also established my covenant with them, to give them the land of Canaan, the land of their pilgrimage, wherein they were strangers.” So not even the patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob knew God as the High Priest but are still children of God and are very significant in God’s plan for His people because they knew Him as the God Almighty.
And He said to him, "I am the Lord, Who brought you forth from Ur of the Chaldees, to give you this land to inherit it." זוַיֹּ֖אמֶר אֵלָ֑יו אֲנִ֣י יְהֹוָ֗ה אֲשֶׁ֤ר הֽוֹצֵאתִ֨יךָ֙ מֵא֣וּר כַּשְׂדִּ֔ים לָ֧תֶת לְךָ֛ אֶת־הָאָ֥רֶץ הַזֹּ֖את לְרִשְׁתָּֽהּ: And he said, "O Lord God, how will I know that I will inherit it?" חוַיֹּאמַ֑ר אֲדֹנָ֣י יֱהֹוִ֔ה בַּמָּ֥ה אֵדַ֖ע כִּ֥י אִֽירָשֶֽׁנָּה: in the hebrew it says yahweh in genesis 15 7:8
Out of respect for Jewish listeners/watchers, Dan doesn’t say YHWH out loud, as it is offensive. He does use the name in more scholarly discussions for accuracy, but since this channel is meant for reaching non scholars, he makes some concessions to social norms.
"Abram (who is renamed "Abraham" later) is depicted as **knowing** the deity that interacted with him as "Yahweh." Genesis 13:4 To the place of the altar that he had made at first, and Abram called there in the name of Yahweh. However, Exodus Chapter 6 says that he, his son Isaac, and his grandson Jacob **did not** know the name "Yahweh." Exodus 6:2. God spoke to Moses, and He said to him, "I am Yahweh. 3. I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob with [the name] Almighty God [Hebrew: El Shaddai], but [with] My name "Yahweh," I **did not** become known to them. This contradiction could be a result of "Yahweh" not originally being in the stories of Genesis but being inserted into them by those who favored Yahweh. In other words, perhaps the stories about Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were originally those of the indigenous Canaanites, while the story about Moses freeing the Israelites from Egypt was that of the foreigners who imported Yahweh; the stories may have been combined after the synctetization of Yahweh and El, resulting in a new narrative with obvious seams." *"The Syncretization of Yahweh and El : reddit/AcademicBiblical"*
Seems like a lot of unnecessary effort to reconcile a perceived discrepancy. I would have just assumed He revealed His name to the patriarchs off screen.
I suppose if they had a couple similar books of Genesis from different regions where one used Adonai/YHWH and the other used El Shaddai or whatever, similar to like they had separate records for Samuel/Kings/Chronicles, and combined them rather than keep them separate, that may explain it.
The Abrahamic narratives have every indication that they were originally independent and were at some point collected by the editor into one narrative. In chapter 17, Dan notes that it is the narrator who calls God _Yahweh_ . Abrham himself knew God as _El Shaddai_ . And that is the best explanation for the occurrence of the name _Yahweh_ in the Abrahamic narratives. It was written back into the narratives based on later understanding and revelation. It is also good reason to see the editor understanding _Yahweh_ and _El Shaddai_ as both names of the one and only God, so updating the name to Yahweh is for the sake of the readers so they would not mistake an earlier name as a name for another God. I don't see why the gradual change in what people called God is such a problem. Abraham, for example, most likely used a name that was common in his culture, _El, El Elyon, Eloah, El Shaddai_ . In Gen. 14 the name by which Melchizedek knew God was _El Elyon_ and Abraham uses it as well. American Indians used various names. The Lakota call the Great Spirit _Wakan Tanka_ . In all cases the names the ancients and the primitive cultures in recent days use a name that says something about God. As the understanding of God and revelation increased God's name reflected that more specific understanding. To interpret those names as titles of different Gods is a bit crazy. These were not different Gods. Though God may be plural there is no indication that there is a plurality of Gods.
No, I don’t think that makes sense at all. There are clearly contradicting gods presented. Not merely a “plurality” of one god. That sounds like bad sci-fi and just doesn’t work with the text. Blending gods together or giving one god the attributes of another is just so much more realistic.
@@thetopface Realistic is probably the weak spot in your thesis. If you stop and think, if God is God, he is far beyond anything we can think our way through. That was the problem with all of the pagan gods. They somehow made sense. They were like us writ large. The revelation of the plurality of God is one of those things that don't make sense. Plural gods makes more sense. Buty the Bible from first page to last reveal one God. But from the first page to the last, there is also the hint that God is plural. In Genesis 1 there is _Elohim_ which is plural and there is the Spirit. As we read on the Spirit (known in the NT as the Holy Spirit) becomes more and more prominent. Is that two God's? No, the Bible states that God is one no matter what it may sound like. (Deut. 6:4) Then as we read on we find another. In Isaiah 9:6 we are told about a son. He is a man, but he is also mighty God, _el Gibbor_ In the NT this son is described as the Word which was with God in the beginning and was Divine. That makes three who are the One God. That is plurality, or that is the best way to express it.
@@doncamp1150 so now your argument is that your interpretation is more likely because it makes less sense, but plenty of things don’t make sense. You even initially claimed that historical Hebraic peoples being polytheistic doesn’t make sense. So maybe that’s the one that’s true, because it doesn’t make sense. Maybe the pagan gods are real, because, while one would think they are too limited to be real gods, that’s what makes less sense. See? By your standards, if your interpretation makes less, then that means it makes more sense, but that would mean that it makes less sense, ad infinitum, and if my interpretation makes more sense, then it makes less sense, but that means it makes more sense, ad infinitum. Then you go on to state your presuppositions, which you claim support your interpretation, but only if they are ALL correct. The spirit in genesis that can also be translated as “breath” would need to be connected with your idea of what the Holy Spirit is, Isaiah would need to be referring to Jesus, and an omnipotent god would, for some reason, need to behave as though he is bound by all of these convoluted rules and machinations that require him to behave like someone with dissociative identity disorder. This is all extremely unlikely, and certainly doesn’t read like the actions of something beyond our comprehension, but rather like bad sci-fi writing, in which the author hasn’t fully considered the implications of the world they are building. Your theory is a house of cards on a very windy day. On the other hand, if you accept that a whole bunch of different people changed things throughout the Bible over a very long period of time, as one would naturally assume, everything instantly fits. It’s a much more likely scenario, and it doesn’t end in infinite regress.
@@thetopface If God is as much greater than us in every way as he must be to be Creator of the universe, then to imagine that we can figure God out is probably assuming too much. Our track record is that rather than recognize that God is beyond us we tend to bring him down closer to our size. Which is what all ancient and primitive religions did and the Mormons do today by saying that God was once mortal like we are and that it is possible for us to become Gods like God, many other mortals have after all. That is a terribly inadequate conception of God. The fact is we know God at all because he chose to reveal himself to us. We did not arrive at our understanding by religion or philosophy. "Spirit" is breath or wind or spirit in both the OT language and NT. Like the names of God the words used tell us something about the entity to which they point. "Spirit" implies unseen yet powerful like the wind (John 2). It implies life just as the breath (Romans 8:11). This is simplistic, yet helpful I think: The Father decrees. The Son provides for what the Father decrees. The Spirit brings to pass what the Father decrees and what the Son provides for. That is one God inseparable acting through three persona. There is really no good analogy, but for me light comes the closest. White light in the visible spectrum can be divided into three primary colors. Yet Light is one thing. And light is greater than the visible, just as God is greater than what we experience and know.
@@2besavedcom-7 so why did Dr DM say there are none? Also, why not Jacob? I have heard of the popular interpretations, of which there are several, but it really sounds like it should be theophoric to Jah.
@@2besavedcom-7 okay, I know why he doesn't pronounce Yhwh, confusing though that is. I'm just wondering why he says there are no theophoric names dedicated to Yhwh in Genesis, when there's at least the one that you identified. Was it just a mistake? As an aside, I'm also curious about why Genesis is so thin on Yhwh names, when scholars often consider it to be late compared to the rest of the Torah. By the way Genesis 38 reads loud and clear like a later interpolation, it's just a story about the head of the winning tribe, plonked right in the middle of a beloved old story to give Judah some authority and credibility, so maybe Dr DM meant the whole of Genesis except chapter 38?
What if Moses was using the 3rd person omniscient voice and, as he gives the story of Genesis to the ex-slave Hebrews in the wilderness, he uses the name *they* know when YWHW shows up to Abraham, even if Abraham *himself* didn’t know/use that name? I’m just spitballing, I defer to Dan’s judgement as someone who’s actually studied these things deeply 😂
@@TacticusPrime yes, thank you, saying “Moses” is a lot faster than “the scribes and editors who assembled the oral and written traditions hundreds of years after their occurrence.” Whoever wrote it was writing “as Moses” allegedly “to the Hebrew ex-slaves in the wilderness.” I also say Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John wrote the gospels more for expediency than precision.
@@Cornelius135 But that changes how we approach the text. These are collated records of oral traditions. They can't be analyzed with the same assumptions as a piece of literature. The "author" wasn't coming up with the story and putting YHWH into the mouth of Abraham for convenience of the "reader." To be clear, these were gathered texts for the priests to read aloud.
Crazy how Dan can have all this reason, logic and education when approaching the bible yet still be a practicing mormon. Mormonism's origin, doctrine, founder and propagation is even more sketchy, racist and spurious than the bible itself. It doesn't take a reasonable person more than 5 minutes of reading to dismiss mormonism(though i like their doctrine of humans transcending or evolving into Gods. That was clearly taken from more ancient eastern spiritual systems and remixed Joey Smith's style). The human man is an ants nest of cognitive dissonance however, and Dan seems to be an example of that
Every Bible scholar knows the ‘Jordan ‘ is nowhere called a river in the OT. Dan, how about you? Nah. Nor does this wannabe know there are 5 different Abram (hams) in the OT. Stop the rot.
@hardwork8395 that is not a true statement. As far as I've always been told, the later author added the name when they realized what the name was. That is clearly an assumption taught as doctrine, but I have heard it in several places.
@@kevinbarry3965 Okay, so then how do you tell if something was changed vs not without an earlier manuscript to corroborate that? (As this is presumably going based on our earliest manuscripts)
@@Texasmade74 Monotheism always existed but it was among minorities. The story of the OT is Prophets calling out their people to return to the One true God. called
So, you're saying that Genesis 14: 22 was edited because Abraham didn't actually know YHWH of YHWH God Most High that he tells the King of Sodom. In correcting him that their canaanite god El isn't God Most High. Is this your renegotiating the text or just a 21st century minimalist interpretation from your liberal religious studies program ???
Genesis 14:22 didn't originally have the divine name. The Septuagint and the quotation in the Genesis Apocryphon from Qumran don't have it. Scholars agree it was a later addition.
Oddly enough, when the Tetragrammaton appears in Exodus 6.3, the Latin Vulgate, instead of translating as the usual "dominus" (Lord), or "deus" (God), LITERALLY reads "adonai".
Thanks, Dan! ❤
Prof, you know it’s Schrödinger's bible, where all things are possible at one time. 😂😂😂
👍
This actually answers one of my questions, can God be worshipped without knowing His name? Apparently, this is traditional. I still believe, however, that the God of Israel has grown impatient with the lack of the sacred rituals and (animal) blood sacrifices since the Fall of the Second Temple (or perhaps even the First), and has either withered away or wandered off. Patience isn't one of His virtues.
He came to America, where operates a taxidermy shop in Georgia. He sustains his meager divinity from the scraps hunters bring him
All the worship sent his way because he isn't specifically named by his worshipers goes into the general god worship sphere and thus ends up empowering other gods.
@@lightbearer313 demons*
@@Lucas-mp5dwGods* The "false gods" rhetoric is a postbiblical narrative.
Hey Dan, what do you think of the work of Paul Wallis??? I’ve been watching a lot of his videos….amazing really makes you read and see the Bible in a different light
I have been waiting on a comment from Dan about Paul Willis and Mauro biglino works 😅😅😅... Very interesting stuff.. I Read a book from mauro: The bible is not a sacred book... Wonderful point of view
I'm wearing that exact shirt rn
Dan would like his shirt back.
No Human Character Names rooted in YHWH,
But Place Names rooted in YHWH ?
Sounds like they moved into a new area/territory
And adopted the god that had all this local stuff named after them
Agreed about the non-YHWH theophoric names in Genesis. Even the nation of Israel, Isra-EL, is named after El, not YHWH. Otherwise it could have been named Isra-YHWH lol
@@2besavedcom-7 I think that's a fair point. But even then it's telling that there's only one YHWH theophoric name, and "incidentally" it's the most important of the tribes historically speaking
Wouldn’t it make more sense for the God of Genesis to be El instead of Yahweh? Yahweh only inherited Israel when El decided he didn’t want to manage 70 nations by himself anymore.
It makes sense that the God of Exodus would be Yahweh. This God works differently. He wants to come down and hang out with his people.
This idea is supported by Deuteronomy 8:32
@@yamhyamh oh yeah, re-reading the Song of Moses, it definitely does say that Yahweh inherited the people of Israel starting with Jacob himself.
Does Dan have a video where he explains his pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton exclusively as “Adonai”?
I’ve heard a lot of other people say “Yahweh” and I’m sure he has a good and interesting reason to NOT do that, but I don’t know where to find it 😅
He says “Yahwistic” even, but not “Yahweh”. I feel like this has an interesting story behind it.
I don't know if he has a video specifically about it, but he's mentioned it's because he's aware he has followers among Jewish communities who would be uncomfortable with him saying the Tetragrammaton out loud.
@@Screwtapellotrue, but that still doesn’t explain why he’s willing to say “Yahwistic” which is really not that far off from just saying the Name out loud.
@@jacobemmanuel4772 I think that makes sense, if it really is only the name itself that has the taboo. Different taboos work differently.
Dr. Justin Sledge of Esoterica, a Jew, don't have problem writing and pronouncing the name Yahweh.
Correct me if I am wrong, but why is "YHWH" not found in the Septuagint?
I wish God was the same yesterday today and tomorrow... But here they are striking a deal with a man.tff😂😂😂
I gotta ask, why would God give a "fake" name? Or why would he have multiple names like an alias?
I think it’s clear to us that these were attempts of later editors trying to paper over uncomfortable, tacit admissions in the text of polytheism in ancient Israel.
@@hardwork8395 Probably some of that, but also ancient and polytheistic deities often have multiple names. Sometimes there are variations based on region or portfolio like some of the ancient Greco-Roman gods, or the Greeks and Romans would equate their gods with those of other cultures (e.g. Thoth-Hermes, Zeus-Amon). The Norse gods have multiple names possibly because the poetic tradition is based on alliteration so poets want alternate names for their deities to make finding the right words easier. My understanding of Hinduism is pretty superficial so if anyone better educated can clarify please do, but Hindu deities have multiple incarnations or avatars with different names, etc. Even within the modern Abraham faiths there are multiple ways of referring to the One God.
I don't care, ask him.
@@digitaljanus excellent!
@@digitaljanus The difference is that in Hinduism, the avatars are their own distinct individuals. They're not the same entity just using a different name.
Dan is overly generous to apologists.
They will indeed try all the usual twists & turns and claim that a remotely possible solution is 'the truth' but they will never honestly admit that such scholarly observations are accurate. Because, ultimately, they are not interested in the truth or the facts, only in maintaining their beliefs; sometimes through genuine commitment but often for monetary gain as they fleece their flock.
I generally agree with you but I have a question. Wasn't the purpose of the bible to maintain boundaries and structure power? To marginalize those you thought should be marginalized... gentiles, slaves, the ritually unclean...The idea of a chosen people is pretty hardcore power structuring and definitely next level boundary maintenance. How is what the people you stitch with any different than the original intent of the bible? Didn't the original authors, editors, redactors, and margin noters all negotiate with existing text? Didn't they negotiate with the oral traditions before that? do we just hold modern people more responsible because they should know better or are there other reasons?
How is anyone suppose to respond to this when your making up what the Bible is?
@@KaijuOfTheOpera First... you're... Do we agree that it is not inerrant, not univocal, and not inherently authoritative? Does the bible structure power and maintain boundaries? Did every person involved from the first oral traditionalist to the last person to read it 5 minutes ago, negotiate with the text that exist prior to them? Have I made anything up yet? How is any modern text negotiator any different than any other except that you prefer that negotiation and has it not always existed as a proof text for you preferred negotiations? Wasn't the only reason to write it down to actually preserve that proof text for your negotiations? That's why you claim famous authorship or record Vaticinium ex eventu, right? Why do negotiations closer to the primary source or previous negotiation with the text, carry more weight than any other?
@@MrJwsasser Because its all subjective and your trying to approach this as something objective.
@@KaijuOfTheOpera I don't think you understand what that means
No, the claim that the LORD reveals His name to Abraham is not supported by evidence. Even if we consider that the word 'Jehovah' was in use before Moses, it was not understood as the LORD's name. This is evident from Moses' question to the LORD for a name that he could impress upon the leaders and elders of Israel, now in Egypt, by whose authority he comes (Exodus 3:13-15). If the word 'Jehovah' was already in prominent use as you insist, why would Moses ask for it? The divine interactions of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were through the phrase 'God Almighty' (Exodus 6:3). It is not until Exodus 6:3 that the LORD settles the matter.
I am not approaching the text with the presupposition that they must agree. The LORD did not reveal His name, "JEHOVAH" (Exodus 6:3), to any Israelite patriarch before Moses. But to understand this, you'd have to know there's a difference between the terms "Lord" and "God." Being able to distinguish between the terms "Lord" and "God" is the assurance by which I reject the supposition that those who seek to affirm Exodus 6:3 as truth need such a presupposition.
How many comic book shirts do you have lol
Eleventy. Exactly that number-no higher and not one lower.
@@hardwork8395Only in Kings. In Chronicles, it's eleventeen.
@@lavieestlenfer your erudition is a beacon of the purest sunlight, and a blessing to us all.
Why does he say Adonai when it says yhwh?
Because it's not a name it's the sound of breath. In and out. The breath of life
gabbygood6813 is incorrect.
McClellan has stated elsewhere that he does so out of respect for those viewers who believe YHWH should not be pronounced/spoken.
@@nolanbalzer1796 it's still not a name. It's the sound God made when he breathed life into us
@@gabbygood6813 where can i learn your way?
@@gabbygood6813pretty sure Dan made a video specifically debunking this very claim lol
Dan, I know you’re trying to be respectful of Jewish people by saying Adonai, but I think if you used the Jewish “ha Shem”, it would be much less confusing for beginners.
Why would that be less confusing? It’s still a Hebrew stand-in for the name, and it’s just as unknown to native English speakers as Adonai
@@maxwellmaxwell3042 because Adonai is still a term meaning Lord
@@23ADJ93 Duh. You’re still not explaining by why it’s confusing
In some translations for genesis 4:26 says something like: "Then the men began to call the name of Jehovah (or The lord, or adonai or yahweh)" could you address that?
Not an expert to take my info with a grain of salt, but from my understanding that's basically just different ways of rendering the tetragrammaton. Some insist that it's "Jehovah" and so translate it that way, and English translations used broadly I've noticed just translate the name as "LORD" usually in all caps to indicate that it's the divine name
@@sammysamlovescats Use of "Lord" goes back over 2000 years. Though, the capitalization to distinguish the name from other uses of adonai was pioneered by William Tyndale in 1530.
@@2besavedcom-7 Actually from an Old English term meaning "loaf ward". But it's been the standard translation for the Latin equivalent of adonai this entire time.
Many of the Jews I know will neither speak nor write the name of God. Some of them will neither speak nor write the word “God”. “Adonai” is a term I have only heard non-Jewish scholars use. When I have discussed it with knowledgeable Jews, I was told that they no longer use Adonai because, after long association with God, it has acquired some of the same reverence due to other terms used to describe God. I think the preferred term is currently “Ha Shem” or “Hashem”.
And with time "hashem" will fall in the same box. It's just a dogma they have.
That’s going to vary by denomination within Judaism, and “Adonai” works just fine for the majority of us. I’ve always been extremely impressed with how respectfully Dan handles Jewish sources and terms even when he is using them in explicitly Christian contexts.
@@Chriscastro22 That’s exactly what I was told. One of my friends described it as being similar to radiation. If you leave anything next to a strongly radioactive source for long enough, it will eventually become radioactive.
Some write G-d which is silly because it is not the name of God just an english word. That behavior seems pious but it hides corruption
Some Bibles also replace all instances of YHWH with "the Lord" which probably goes against Psalm 86:12 but probably helps with the narrative of Jesus's divinity. Why would God make the Bible harder to read by including a name you shouldn't speak? Is saying it in your head while reading it also wrong?
I think it was Jewish edits….To differentiate YHWH from El.
Who was the YHW dude?
Documentary Hypothesis
No
@@changer1285Yes
Can you explain why you use they them pronouns for god? The Bible seems to use he him. Our father who art in heaven….
*I love the grounded reality of this channel!!!*
Retirement took a toll on my finances, but with my involvement in the digital market, $27,000 weekly returns has been life changing. AWESOME GOD❤️
Bible is supernatural. A relationship w Jesus is supernatural. I started a three days fast this morning. Thank you for this message. I'm 47yrs old $27,000 biweekly and I'm retired, this video have inspired me greatly in many ways!!!
Awesome how do you make such monthly, am a born Christian and sometimes I feel so down 😭 of myself because of low finance but I still believe God😞
Thanks to my co-worker (Alex) who suggested Ms Maria Luisa Abrams.
She's a licensed broker in the states 🇺🇸
After I raised up to 325k trading with her I bought a new House and a car here in the states 🇺🇸🇺🇸 also paid for my son's surgery (Oscar). Glory to God.shalom.
Notice he keeps saying "they" and not "he".
cause God's preffered pronouns arent known, right? LOOOL.
Isaiah 41:4 Who hath wrought and done it, calling the generations from the beginning? I the LORD, the first, and with the last; I am he.
Danny Jones won't even air your interview it went so bad.
Do you know YHWH is preserved in quran...
Shema yisrael
YaHuWaH Elohinu YaHuWaH Echad
Surah 112:1
Qul HUW Allah HUW Ahad..
Echad=Ahad in arabic. That is only used once in both quran and Torah to represent God oneness.
Huw (also pronounce HUWA, IYYAHU, HUW)=YHWH (Yahuwah)
Also jews ceased pronouncing this name during 2nd temple time so its impossible for Prophet Muhammad to know about original Shema which is in Surah 112.
Always fact check Dan with a conservative scholar, I agree with him sometimes, but if there is a logical explanation that is better than a far left liberal construct, Dan usually chooses the latter. I've seen this time and time again, he likes to stay on the far left skeptical edge.
It's not a name it's the sound of breathing. The breath in and out
Dr. McClellan has debunked this claim repeatedly. It seems to be a claim only purported by those that don’t study or understand Hebrew.
@@chadkent327 just because a doctor says something does not make it true
God must have been wheezy that day.
@@petervancaeseele9832 it was a windy day and the cottonwood was blowing pretty hard...
@@gabbygood6813 correct, but the evidence and information on the subject he is able to present, including why the letters in the Tetragrammaton are spoken not breathed, does make it true, or at least far more likely to be true than something people just made up with no evidence. You seem to think I watch McClellan’s videos because I just agree with him blindly. In reality I watch them because he is very good at supporting his information and showing the process that leads scholars to these conclusions.
I understand why you say Adonai instead of Yhwh, but it is VERY confusing in videos where you talk about multiple names for god/s. You might want to consider explaining your Adonai/Yhwh switch-up in each video that deals with the name Yhwh.
Or consider pronouncing Yhwh in such videos.
My hypothesis is that Abraham wasn’t originally an Israelite character or myth but one from an older religion that existed before Israel did.
That is something I have considered plausible, even probable, for some time. It seems Job is older than anything, the origin stories quite possibly originated before that.
@@ronjones1414 most of the time I see the Bible claim that someone was named one thing but then changed their name to another, I believe that that character was originally from one culture and religion and then the people who wrote a book in the Bible just took that character and changed their name to their culture and then pretend they were the same person the whole time.
I heard recently (can’t remember from whom because I follow other biblical scholars besides Dan) that one hypothesis is that Abraham, Jacob/Israel and Moses were three distinct traditions (origin stories) that at a certain point were collated together and turned into a sequential narrative. And iirc they don’t think Abraham’s is the oldest story either.
Definitely there’s signs in the text that there’s been a lot of editing going on.
@@pansepot1490 I am familiar with that as well. I think the lessons in the stories are far more applicable than any historical record.
@@pansepot1490 That's one of the reasons Dan has pointed out his suspicion that in the Abraham-Isaac story, Abraham did sacrifice Isaac and the Isaac's supposed rescue by an angel was a retcon to have another character from another foundation myth, who may or may not also have been named Isaac, be associated with him.
Is Joseph a theophoric name?
EDIT: The answer is no, but someone else can explain.
Always good insights, Dan.
*Verses vs “I was not known…”*
Abraham and others knew Yahweh’s name
Genesis 4:1, 15:7; 21:33, 22:14; 24:35,40,42,48,50,51,56; 26:22; 27:20; 49:18; etc.
… No, they didn’t
Exodus 6:2-3
Yes, someone did: In Exodus 6:20, Yochebed probably means “Yahweh is glory”, so Moses’ own family knew Yahweh’s name.
Abraham's birthplace is given as Ur of the Chaldees (ʾŪr Kaśdīm), an anachronism as the Chaldeans (neo-Babylonians) were several centuries after any putative dates for Abraham's life. Is it possible that "Kaśdīm" could instead mean "Kassites," who were at least present in Mesopotamia much earlier, after the Amorite Babylonians before being conquered by the Middle Assyrians? (Please be kind: I'm not an expert. I only recognize a similarity in the names, and Kassite fits the timing of Abraham closer than Chaldees.)
I suspect that's just because the close to final renditions of books like Genesis were put together much later than when Abraham was supposed to have lived. Still anachronistic, but makes sense in that light
Abraham is an alternative YHWH their lord is El.
First of all Genesis 4:24 says, "If Cain shall be avenged sevenfold, truly Lamech seventy and sevenfold." So there’s no mention of a name of God anyhow. Secondly, there is no contradiction as God is known now by many names but at the time of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as “The Lord” who is still God Almighty.
Exodus 6:3-4, “And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them. And I have also established my covenant with them, to give them the land of Canaan, the land of their pilgrimage, wherein they were strangers.” So not even the patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob knew God as the High Priest but are still children of God and are very significant in God’s plan for His people because they knew Him as the God Almighty.
And He said to him, "I am the Lord, Who brought you forth from Ur of the Chaldees, to give you this land to inherit it." זוַיֹּ֖אמֶר אֵלָ֑יו אֲנִ֣י יְהֹוָ֗ה אֲשֶׁ֤ר הֽוֹצֵאתִ֨יךָ֙ מֵא֣וּר כַּשְׂדִּ֔ים לָ֧תֶת לְךָ֛ אֶת־הָאָ֥רֶץ הַזֹּ֖את לְרִשְׁתָּֽהּ:
And he said, "O Lord God, how will I know that I will inherit it?" חוַיֹּאמַ֑ר אֲדֹנָ֣י יֱהֹוִ֔ה בַּמָּ֥ה אֵדַ֖ע כִּ֥י אִֽירָשֶֽׁנָּה:
in the hebrew it says yahweh in genesis 15 7:8
I don’t get it!!!! YHWH does not sound like Adonai or spelled the same
Out of respect for Jewish listeners/watchers, Dan doesn’t say YHWH out loud, as it is offensive. He does use the name in more scholarly discussions for accuracy, but since this channel is meant for reaching non scholars, he makes some concessions to social norms.
"Abram (who is renamed "Abraham" later) is depicted as **knowing** the deity that interacted with him as "Yahweh."
Genesis 13:4 To the place of the altar that he had made at first, and Abram called there in the name of Yahweh.
However, Exodus Chapter 6 says that he, his son Isaac, and his grandson Jacob **did not** know the name "Yahweh."
Exodus 6:2. God spoke to Moses, and He said to him, "I am Yahweh. 3. I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob with [the name] Almighty God [Hebrew: El Shaddai], but [with] My name "Yahweh," I **did not** become known to them.
This contradiction could be a result of "Yahweh" not originally being in the stories of Genesis but being inserted into them by those who favored Yahweh. In other words, perhaps the stories about Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were originally those of the indigenous Canaanites, while the story about Moses freeing the Israelites from Egypt was that of the foreigners who imported Yahweh; the stories may have been combined after the synctetization of Yahweh and El, resulting in a new narrative with obvious seams."
*"The Syncretization of Yahweh and El : reddit/AcademicBiblical"*
Why are you saying that God’s reflexive pronoun is “themselves”? Plural?
Seems like a lot of unnecessary effort to reconcile a perceived discrepancy. I would have just assumed He revealed His name to the patriarchs off screen.
I suppose if they had a couple similar books of Genesis from different regions where one used Adonai/YHWH and the other used El Shaddai or whatever, similar to like they had separate records for Samuel/Kings/Chronicles, and combined them rather than keep them separate, that may explain it.
The Abrahamic narratives have every indication that they were originally independent and were at some point collected by the editor into one narrative. In chapter 17, Dan notes that it is the narrator who calls God _Yahweh_ . Abrham himself knew God as _El Shaddai_ . And that is the best explanation for the occurrence of the name _Yahweh_ in the Abrahamic narratives. It was written back into the narratives based on later understanding and revelation.
It is also good reason to see the editor understanding _Yahweh_ and _El Shaddai_ as both names of the one and only God, so updating the name to Yahweh is for the sake of the readers so they would not mistake an earlier name as a name for another God.
I don't see why the gradual change in what people called God is such a problem. Abraham, for example, most likely used a name that was common in his culture, _El, El Elyon, Eloah, El Shaddai_ . In Gen. 14 the name by which Melchizedek knew God was _El Elyon_ and Abraham uses it as well. American Indians used various names. The Lakota call the Great Spirit _Wakan Tanka_ . In all cases the names the ancients and the primitive cultures in recent days use a name that says something about God. As the understanding of God and revelation increased God's name reflected that more specific understanding.
To interpret those names as titles of different Gods is a bit crazy. These were not different Gods. Though God may be plural there is no indication that there is a plurality of Gods.
No, I don’t think that makes sense at all. There are clearly contradicting gods presented. Not merely a “plurality” of one god. That sounds like bad sci-fi and just doesn’t work with the text.
Blending gods together or giving one god the attributes of another is just so much more realistic.
@@thetopface Realistic is probably the weak spot in your thesis. If you stop and think, if God is God, he is far beyond anything we can think our way through. That was the problem with all of the pagan gods. They somehow made sense. They were like us writ large.
The revelation of the plurality of God is one of those things that don't make sense. Plural gods makes more sense. Buty the Bible from first page to last reveal one God. But from the first page to the last, there is also the hint that God is plural. In Genesis 1 there is _Elohim_ which is plural and there is the Spirit. As we read on the Spirit (known in the NT as the Holy Spirit) becomes more and more prominent. Is that two God's? No, the Bible states that God is one no matter what it may sound like. (Deut. 6:4)
Then as we read on we find another. In Isaiah 9:6 we are told about a son. He is a man, but he is also mighty God, _el Gibbor_
In the NT this son is described as the Word which was with God in the beginning and was Divine.
That makes three who are the One God. That is plurality, or that is the best way to express it.
@@doncamp1150 so now your argument is that your interpretation is more likely because it makes less sense, but plenty of things don’t make sense. You even initially claimed that historical Hebraic peoples being polytheistic doesn’t make sense. So maybe that’s the one that’s true, because it doesn’t make sense. Maybe the pagan gods are real, because, while one would think they are too limited to be real gods, that’s what makes less sense. See? By your standards, if your interpretation makes less, then that means it makes more sense, but that would mean that it makes less sense, ad infinitum, and if my interpretation makes more sense, then it makes less sense, but that means it makes more sense, ad infinitum.
Then you go on to state your presuppositions, which you claim support your interpretation, but only if they are ALL correct. The spirit in genesis that can also be translated as “breath” would need to be connected with your idea of what the Holy Spirit is, Isaiah would need to be referring to Jesus, and an omnipotent god would, for some reason, need to behave as though he is bound by all of these convoluted rules and machinations that require him to behave like someone with dissociative identity disorder. This is all extremely unlikely, and certainly doesn’t read like the actions of something beyond our comprehension, but rather like bad sci-fi writing, in which the author hasn’t fully considered the implications of the world they are building. Your theory is a house of cards on a very windy day.
On the other hand, if you accept that a whole bunch of different people changed things throughout the Bible over a very long period of time, as one would naturally assume, everything instantly fits. It’s a much more likely scenario, and it doesn’t end in infinite regress.
@@thetopface If God is as much greater than us in every way as he must be to be Creator of the universe, then to imagine that we can figure God out is probably assuming too much. Our track record is that rather than recognize that God is beyond us we tend to bring him down closer to our size. Which is what all ancient and primitive religions did and the Mormons do today by saying that God was once mortal like we are and that it is possible for us to become Gods like God, many other mortals have after all. That is a terribly inadequate conception of God.
The fact is we know God at all because he chose to reveal himself to us. We did not arrive at our understanding by religion or philosophy.
"Spirit" is breath or wind or spirit in both the OT language and NT. Like the names of God the words used tell us something about the entity to which they point. "Spirit" implies unseen yet powerful like the wind (John 2). It implies life just as the breath (Romans 8:11).
This is simplistic, yet helpful I think: The Father decrees. The Son provides for what the Father decrees. The Spirit brings to pass what the Father decrees and what the Son provides for. That is one God inseparable acting through three persona. There is really no good analogy, but for me light comes the closest. White light in the visible spectrum can be divided into three primary colors. Yet Light is one thing. And light is greater than the visible, just as God is greater than what we experience and know.
@@doncamp1150 ok man
2:38 - Isn't "Jacob" a theophoric name using the name of Yhwh?
@@2besavedcom-7 so why did Dr DM say there are none?
Also, why not Jacob? I have heard of the popular interpretations, of which there are several, but it really sounds like it should be theophoric to Jah.
@@2besavedcom-7 okay, I know why he doesn't pronounce Yhwh, confusing though that is. I'm just wondering why he says there are no theophoric names dedicated to Yhwh in Genesis, when there's at least the one that you identified.
Was it just a mistake?
As an aside, I'm also curious about why Genesis is so thin on Yhwh names, when scholars often consider it to be late compared to the rest of the Torah.
By the way Genesis 38 reads loud and clear like a later interpolation, it's just a story about the head of the winning tribe, plonked right in the middle of a beloved old story to give Judah some authority and credibility, so maybe Dr DM meant the whole of Genesis except chapter 38?
What if Moses was using the 3rd person omniscient voice and, as he gives the story of Genesis to the ex-slave Hebrews in the wilderness, he uses the name *they* know when YWHW shows up to Abraham, even if Abraham *himself* didn’t know/use that name? I’m just spitballing, I defer to Dan’s judgement as someone who’s actually studied these things deeply 😂
... Moses didn't write Genesis. It was put together beginning in the Babylonian period.
@@TacticusPrime yes, thank you, saying “Moses” is a lot faster than “the scribes and editors who assembled the oral and written traditions hundreds of years after their occurrence.” Whoever wrote it was writing “as Moses” allegedly “to the Hebrew ex-slaves in the wilderness.” I also say Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John wrote the gospels more for expediency than precision.
@@Cornelius135 But that changes how we approach the text. These are collated records of oral traditions. They can't be analyzed with the same assumptions as a piece of literature. The "author" wasn't coming up with the story and putting YHWH into the mouth of Abraham for convenience of the "reader." To be clear, these were gathered texts for the priests to read aloud.
Crazy how Dan can have all this reason, logic and education when approaching the bible yet still be a practicing mormon. Mormonism's origin, doctrine, founder and propagation is even more sketchy, racist and spurious than the bible itself. It doesn't take a reasonable person more than 5 minutes of reading to dismiss mormonism(though i like their doctrine of humans transcending or evolving into Gods. That was clearly taken from more ancient eastern spiritual systems and remixed Joey Smith's style). The human man is an ants nest of cognitive dissonance however, and Dan seems to be an example of that
Contradictions in a book of myths and fables?
Every Bible scholar knows the ‘Jordan ‘ is nowhere called a river in the OT. Dan, how about you? Nah. Nor does this wannabe know there are 5 different Abram (hams) in the OT. Stop the rot.
In france our industry leader worldy renowed seems inspired by this
Poor Abraham, YHVH represented to him as Adonai. How could he know what is what Dan is confusing us more than Abraham was confused about YHVH.
I've been taught this in church for at least 35 years. How is this news?
You went to a damn good church. No one else on earth was so lucky.
@hardwork8395 that is not a true statement. As far as I've always been told, the later author added the name when they realized what the name was. That is clearly an assumption taught as doctrine, but I have heard it in several places.
@@ronjones1414 I was being tongue in cheek.
@@hardwork8395 yep, I'm horrible at missing that.
@@ronjones1414 no worries. I’m not that good at it either. Lol
Dan that’s well established
There has been word smiths literally changing words in the WORD of The MOST HIGH to suit they’re agendas
Wait, are you arguing that those words were changed to make a contradiction or something?
@@sammysamlovescats Yes
Of course it’s corrupted one translation says I AM the ALPHA and OMEGA
another days I AM The ALEF and TAU
ALEF Bet 22 Letters
Greek “translation” 24 letters
@@kevinbarry3965 Okay, so then how do you tell if something was changed vs not without an earlier manuscript to corroborate that? (As this is presumably going based on our earliest manuscripts)
The biggest crime in the Bible is the manipulation of the name of the true God. The good news, the truth must leak somewhere.
What is god?
Not genocide, murder, war crimes, slavery, rape, pillage, or theft. Nope, not that. Just using a name you don't like.
@@Texasmade74 Monotheism always existed but it was among minorities. The story of the OT is Prophets calling out their people to return to the One true God. called
@@digitaljanus The creator, who sent prophets
@@lavieestlenfer I am talking about the text itself not events..
This man is a false teacher beware folks
Run way christians ur religion is dead
Run way christians ur religion is dead
Run way christians ur religion is dead
So, you're saying that Genesis 14: 22 was edited because Abraham didn't actually know YHWH of YHWH God Most High that he tells the King of Sodom.
In correcting him that their canaanite god El isn't God Most High.
Is this your renegotiating the text or just a 21st century minimalist interpretation from your liberal religious studies program ???
God Most High is “el elyon.” Yes, Abram puts YHWH in front of El elyon, but that could have been an interpolation as suggested by Exodus 6.
The bible is clear, Abraham, Jacob and Isaac didn't know the name
Genesis 14:22 didn't originally have the divine name. The Septuagint and the quotation in the Genesis Apocryphon from Qumran don't have it. Scholars agree it was a later addition.