The New New Testament ft. David Bentley Hart | The Michael Knowles Show Ep. 131
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 15 сен 2024
- Happy Easter! To celebrate, Michael sits down with American Orthodox theologian and scholar David Bentley Hart to discuss his new translation of the New Testament. Then, after all that Good News, a bunch of politically bad news.
To watch the full show live, become a premium subscriber. Join the team! www.dailywire....
Like this video? Subscribe to our YT channel and leave a comment below!
Love this dude, conservative on relegion, politically left leaning, and the arrogant manner in which he smacks around the likes of Dawkins, Harris, Dennet and JBP is a sight to behold.
New Atheists are liars and evils.
Love heretics & pseudo Orthodox? You are brainwashed friend, you need to repent
he's not conservative on religion at all lol
Have you read any of his books or listened to his lectures? DBH is extremely progressive with regards to religion. He is a universalist.
@@countryboyredWild that you consider universalism to be progressive.
Apparently all of Jordan Peterson's wives showed up to defend him. Get over it. They're intellectuals, of course they will disagree in lots of different levels. He may be right, Peterson may be right.
I'd say character attacks are different from intellectual disagreements, though. "Hack" may arguably be an intellectual criticism, but opportunistic profiteer really isn't.
@@ruraljefferson3176 is he not? Do you really thing he's trying to resuscitate the dormant logos? How does one even do that? By telling the truth? He wasn't exactly honest about his meat diet or his mental health being fixed by it was he? Said it cured his mental health while secretly getting his Benzo's up'd, that was only out'd because he fucked his self up on them.
What honest about that?
@@emmashalliker6862 thank goodness that Hart never heard Peterson's lectures on the Bible.
@@ruraljefferson3176 I didn't know being called a "Hack" was valid intellectual criticism. Mr. Hart didn't really point out anything specific he disagreed with. All he did was insult and dismiss him.
I didn't know intellectual disagreement was just about insulting others and criticizing their motivations. Maybe I actual have a shot at being an intellectual then!
Hart is a moonbat politically. However, I think the case for universal reconciliation is a good one.
Nah, he's right about socialism. Def preferable to global capitalism.
Great show Michael. I am Orthodox too and i follow you on twitter! You are a good man and a hope for Christians
Sorry, brother, but if you are a true eastern Orthodox, you wouldn't follow a vile wicked arrogant blasphemer as Hart. I find it hilarious that he thinks he's different than pagan Peterson 🤦♂️
I want the 13 minute quotes from Agustin and Calvin that would keep me up at night.
☦St Augustinus have nothing to do with Hart & Calvin the vile heretics, thank you
Great show. I bought this new Testament today. I enjoyed your comments at the end.
Yeah, you can tell that he has been privately getting annoyed by JPs success. But I think he's taking offence from the standpoint of his specialties. It's like having someone who really loves wine, vs the person who lives wine. The wine lover may describe a wine as "good", which makes the wine connoisseur scoff. They're operating from two different types of experience and knowledge, but both have their legitimacy.
TheBBear86 that's probably the best analogy I've heard yet.
It's still frustrating to listen to someone be that petty though
The only problem with the Theologian take his it's not based in any real experiential testing. It may have some experience will testing but it is definitely not based in that it's mainly based in Scripture. Whereas psychology has its base in experiential testing and then corroborates scripture. It's kind of attacking the same problem at two different angles.
I found his side-swipe at JBP to be immensely distasteful. Regardless of theological credentials, the amount of good impact he has had on myself and others around me surely makes him more than just a "hack". I've hardly ever read or met anyone who left the New Atheist crowd due to reading Mr. Hart, while there are soooo many who now appreciate religion due to JBP.
Not by JP’s success. But by JP’s inability to do good philosophy.
@@Joefrenomics Good points.
That Hideous Strength. CS Lewis. Wow. Thanks, great interview!
The Orthodox taking fasting to an extreme? What: giving up meat and dairy products? That's me every day!
Do you also forego oil?
@@alfredoprime5495 Yes. I have histamine issues
@@bayreuth79 oh my! that must be very difficult, or at least at the beginning. I wish you all the best!
Actually, the Orthodox in their Great Lent (properly "Great Fast," Megali Nistia) forgo meat, fish, dairy, eggs, oil, and wine and eat no more than one meal a day, mostly boiled vegetables with a pinch of salt, if that.
@@davidbraun6209 Uh, maybe the monks go that far. I don't know anyone, besides maybe the priest, at my parish who go that extreme for Lent.
I agree with Hart. Conservatives jumped on the JP boat too quickly. You may like him, he's fairly intelligent. But hes not the first rate mind some on the right are portraying him to be.
Granting (magnanimously) an objective measure of first- and second-rate minds that accounts for fields of study and unmade attempts, I don't think conservatives jumped on the JP boat because they expected him to win a Nobel Prize. I think, like most everybody else, they recognized his impact on the culture, and they happened to like it.
Rural Jefferson Right, I can totally understand it. But some revere him as some kind of intellectual hero. He's not. His ideas aren't new. He is a cultural hero who has been able to expose Jungian ideas to lay people. (Whether or not they are consistent with traditional American conservatism is a different question altogether)
Timothy Bukowski Isn't the whole point of what Peterson's been saying is that it isn't new?
I agree. I think if Hart and Peterson ever talked, Hart would fill in a lot of holes is Peterson's thinking.
I think you're crazy if you think that Hart would fill in any holes. He doesn't even back up his assertions like the second-rate mind comment. That was just underhanded and nasty, plus he was this guy to say that he's a second-rate mind. All I've got to say is a first-rate mind never calls someone else a second-rate mind. I think this Hart is just a pompous prick.
This guy's IQ must approach the quadruple digits.
Hart is blindingly brilliant where it comes to his own arena (the translation really is first rate, and EXTREMELY helpful).
Sadly, the only thing anyone will get from this is that he is a petty, pompous ass who took unnecessary shots at a good man who is doing phenomenal work.
I am ashamed for Hart’s sake. If you are seeing this, know that the Orthodox Christians in America generally have a muuuuch higher view of Doc P. (Peterson even gives talks with an Orthodox carver of icons regularly). Search “Pageau Peterson” if you want to see graceful Orthodox Christians engaging with Peterson on an incredibly deep level.
I am one of Hart’s biggest fans. I am part of his Facebook group, I have bought everything I could get my hands on, and I could not have had a higher opinion of him until tonight. He was WAAAY over the line, and I feel ashamed for having thought so highly of him.
Hey R T, I'm part of the DBH FB group as well. I agree with everything you said in your OP though I think we can be more charitable to DBH bc he operates in different scholarly circles than the world of RUclips and so, likely, his impression of Peterson has been filtered through many (unhelpful) media. For example, _12 Rules for Life_ is often branded as a *self-help* book and not an introduction to the concrete, life-applications that come from _Maps of Meaning_
Given DBH's "The Fraud of PostModern Theology" he and Peterson would likely find a lot of rapprochement but, for the moment, I really think we should *charitably* read DBH (unlike how he has been with JBP) because that is what will promote and foster mutually enriching dialogue if/when the two get a change to talk through their respective issues.
βασιλέως Φίλιππος I got mine from Amazon for ~$20. The kindle version does not have very good navigation, so I do recommend the hard cover for sure! I’ve bought ten of them as gifts so far, I find it so useful. I use the NET bible site for Greek in my studying, and the combination is powerful.
John Neumann Aye. I rewatched his comments, and while they are no less embarrassing the third time through, I cannot imagine that this level of rancor is accurately aimed. He’s taken great pains to be more charitable to the “fashionable enemies” (although always leaving no doubt what he really thinks, eh?).
The only other person I’ve witnessed him lay into like that was Donald Trump, so it’s probably fair to guess that his dislike for Peterson is rooted in the people for whom Peterson has become a hero of sorts (since there is a lot of overlap between JP-ites and Trumpism).
The tragedy is that 95% of the interview will be forgotten by most, and that many who would have otherwise profited greatly from Hart’s peerless work will instead be put off by his boorish behavior in that short segment.
Yeah, the 95% overcome by a few short sentences in the interview . . . Hart's _First Things_ articles on Rom. 9-11 and Origen are masterpieces and something I wish more people could know about when they think "what is the Christianity on about" - but yeah, sadly his conduct will be his own loss. While I have you here, I'm planning on getting the Doors of the Sea and The Experience of God - I know this was just asked in the FB group, but I'd love to hear your personal favorites given that you are a fellow JBP Fan, I think you may be able to recognize something with more overlap than the rest of the group.
John Neumann I would definitely add The Beauty of the Infinite from Hart’s works. Astounding.
Agreed on both articles - I’m beginning to wonder if I enjoy his articles more than his books.
I thoroughly enjoyed this interview. I thought his interpretations were spot on and align with my current beliefs.
Lisa just don't let that lead to confirmation bias.
Umm... Jordan Peterson is not a theologian but a psychologist. He isn't a hack, he is doing something completely unrelated. Second rate mind? I don't agree with Peterson's religious views either but he is certainly not a second string intellectual. He's far and above his peers. David Bentley Hart, it seems to me is an arrogant narcissistic boaster.
THIS !
I don't think you got the criticism of Peterson. Peterson links religious teachings to the idea of there being stories across cultures that are linked together due to inherent archetypes in humanity. This IS in stark contradiction to theology.
@Ian Wright
The issue is not that subconscious archetypes could exist its that Jordan Peterson sees scripture as a product of these archetypes. By theology many parts should be read as actual historical events.
@@darken2417 He didn't get the criticism of Peterson because there is none to be found in the video above. Perhaps elsewhere Mr. Hart has laid out why he sees Peterson as a hack, but all you have here is a demeaning dismissal. Moreover, its clear Peterson isn't doing theology. That's why his lectures are called "The Psychological Significance of the Biblical Stories".
Great topic on theology and scholarship
I agree Hart can come across as arrogant, he has the capacity to insult and I don't really like his love affair with socialism (his latest piece on NYtimes is highly disappointing and must have come from a place of anger).
However, I think he's sometimes just trying to make a point, because most religious people fall on the conservative spectrum. I think he's trying purposefully to make conservatives uncomfortable, and I think that's a good thing. Liberals should be uncomfortable too of course, but as a more conservative person myself, I think what Hart has to say is fair (usually).
Part of his point is simply to say that to be a Christian is not to be liberal or conservative or affiliated with a party; it is to be a genuine follower of Christ (whatever that means; I am not a Christian, so perhaps that excludes from this judgment call). I think in the religious sense, liberals fail to address the evils of relativism and abortion (Hart condemns both) and conservatives seem to fail to have sympathy for the poor and marginalized. I guess I believe in balance, that there needs to be both liberals and conservatives, and both should shoot to get as close to the middle as possible, and I think it's nice to see an intelligent, religious left-leaning thinker who has plenty of great ideas and great things to say.
I don’t understand how hart can be a Christian and take a anarcho communist stance.
@@The_Scouts_Code How can I help you resolve your confusion?
Apparently, in this new Biblical translation, Jesus commands us to be smug jerks.
Joyless and condescending, that's how I like my Bible translators.
I thought he was absolutely hilarious. I was laughing like an idiot at points. His humor is very dry and biting at points. He is a subject matter expert in an area where I believe most of us have very little actual experience. He comes off as condescending because most of us don't have enough knowledge of the subject to be able to form an opinion much less an actual argument.
Personally, I am a subject matter expert in an obscure field and have been accused, at times, to being condescending to novices because I have been doing this so long I have a hard time remembering what it was like to not know much about it. With other subject matter experts we can have long discussions of the finer points of the topic that sound like gibberish to novices. My clients sometimes say that they have no idea what I was talking about or why I got so excited about seemingly minor points to them.
I was focusing more on the end there where he shit on Jordan Peterson.
Rural Jefferson Truth be told, he is right about Peterson. Peterson does well on the popular level because he creates an excelent illusion of depth and scholarship, but anyone who examins closely will find it lacking in any real substance. Don't get me wrong, there isn't anything wrong with enjoying his work, I get enjoying his message and style, yet there is something very wrong with claiming it is anything more than fluff.
braedon Poteat What do you think Peterson is trying to do? What substance is he purporting to have that he doesn’t? What is his message?
better a second rate mind than a third rate heart how does he understand saint pauls chapter on love verbal cruelty is still cruelty God gives grace to the humble but opposes the proud
"A pastiche of reasonably bad scholarship from a second rate mind." Not really doing yourself any favours by bad mouthing JP, or those who like his work, in this way, Mr.Hart.
I think he was triggered by the fact that Peterson shies away from the metaphysical and doesn't officially adopt the Christian faith. That's fair enough, but to call him a hack for it is stupid and reveals how little he's looked into Peterson.
I think someone like Peterson is essential to rescue people from the brink of nihilism so they may begin their journey to true faith. Hart was just plain wrong that Peterson's message was resonating with an unsurprising crowd; it's actually shocking how many young well-off men have accepted his message in the current culture.
Oh, I just realized at the end of the interview that he's clearly a lefty. It all makes sense now.
Daddy-O
😂 and you realized this how exactly? He didn't say he's a lefty, did he?
The tension at the end of the interview when they briefly mentioned politics and Michael's books implied to me that he was a lefty. I looked him up and all I could find of his politics was a bizarre essay on JRR Tolkien's romantic view of village civilization. Apologies on my assumption.
He seemed a rather taut, narrow, and humorless man, and as soon as he got away from hawking his own book, he couldn't even fake interest or good nature enough to joke with Michael.
Peterson believes life is necessarily tragic but doesn't have to be made hell because of evil. "The price for being is limitation". Meaning and personal responsibility make life bearable and individuals are best able to do this.
In contrast, Hart believes that tragedy is only partially true and contingent. Overcoming limitation is shown fourth through the utter gratuitous overflowing of a properly Christian life and community.
All translations are interpretations, which is why Hart is having to engage in interpretation in explaining his choice of rendering words and phrases.
Hart is the better theologian, something that Peterson would admit. Yet Hart fails to remember Christ’s words, “Do not stop them. If they aren’t against you, they are for you” (Mt 12:30). I saw Hart make the same deriding comment about Peterson months ago, and I was wondering if he would constrain that impulse in this interview. Sad he could not. I much prefer William Lane Craig’s recent comments on Peterson. Craig admitted that Peterson, despite his shortcomings, was creating space in the minds of many critics and skeptics and unbelievers to reconsider Christianity and that was a a welcome thing. Hence Christ’s words.
I find Hart’s style of communicating extremely tedious. Reminds me of NT Wright, where roughly 66% of the words that come from their mouth are superfluous and essentially nothing is said.
i think Hart and Peterson are both very interesting and smart- both are quite arrogant especially Hart (but maybe Hart has a bigger heart than JP?) - don't know - but how cares that one doesn't like the other
I'm sure given the time he would defend his assertion that Peterson is a hack second-rate mind putting on a pastiche for profit, but here it just sounds flippant and ignorant of what Peterson's trying to do. Frankly, it looks like jealousy of Peterson's impact disguised as a lack of care for and low estimation of the concerns and intelligence of the people Peterson seems to be helping, especially when you consider that both their audiences probably have quite a bit of overlap and that Peterson has probably risked quite a bit more than Hart has.
Also, at the end there, nothing is more annoying than someone who refuses to laugh at a few innocuous jokes because they take themselves so seriously.
@@chanting_germ. I'm not so far down on Peterson as to think he's a hack and a shill. I think he is woefully ignorant of topics outside his expertise and ventures outside his realm too often. I haven't watched this video since I commented four years ago, but I do remember Hart being insufferably arrogant and humorless and, I think, criticizing Peterson for not taking the purview of his general message all the way to "You should study apologetics and join X ancient, apostolic Church." I haven't watched anything from Peterson for quite some time, but, if I recall, back then he was basically giving effectively fatherless young men adrift in post-modern culture a modicum of hope and purpose and wasn't at all antagonistic to their continuing the journey all the way to orthodox Christianity. Like I said, though, I haven't kept up much with Peterson, and I have cringed at things he's said about certain political events.
DBH: dont cast your pearls betören swines
Hmmm. Well, I imagine his book won’t do as well as it might have. I understand suggesting Peterson is where he’s at through practically accident and, he’s a bit out of his element as he’s doing his biblical lectures, but he’s already said as much. He admits that he’s learning all of this as he goes. And he’s not out evangelizing to people, but he IS sparking an interest in young people’s mind that could lead to deeper research into the Bible. Interest that may have lead them to authors like hart, but he just shot himself in the foot. Smooth
I think Hart's point is more that Mr. Peterson is WAY out of his element discussing the bible, and that therefore anyone with an interest in the bible ought steer clear of Mr. Peterson in this regard.
JP was so important to see the grater scope of culture and psychology that the Bible has been narrative too and given expression of. Sparked interest in those of us the Church had forgotten and gave a renewed interest in old institutions as places of value.
Lobster army, checking in!
Calling JBP a hack is absolutely absurd.
@JT566 You're a hack.
He is a hack. Imagine debating Zizek after reading a pamphlet ten years ago. Wtf. You heard him debate antinatalism as well? Complete car crash. Sam Harris took him part in their first ever podcast as well. The bf who commits suicide destroyed JP notion of truth, JP literally had no answer. He is a hack.
Lmao how’d that turn out 😀😃😄😆🤣
@@RootinrPootine Awful. He's still an interesting listen, just not when it comes to anything theological.
@@tMatt5M 🤡
Awesome interview, obviously the Peterson talk will create the most comments. Peterson can take it, I think, he's a great mind, at least when talking with leftists. however, it is undoubtedly that DBH is the most intellectually gifted of the two. I am surprised by DBH's opinion of Peterson, but I think he has his arguments, and they are not jealousy. I think a debate between them would be highly successful. I doubt it will ever happen after this.
David B H is not the only person to use cosmos for world, of keep log for logos. (And he may not be do claiming.) NT scholar Louis W Countryman does this in his translation of Gospel of John. Well worth a read, with excellent notes.
Poor David Bentley Hart -- so smart, but he doesn't get nearly the attention that the hack Peterson does. That was a fascinating interview until Hart showed how arrogant and unpleasant he is. Should I call him a hack for his ridiculous analysis of capitalism? (Google it.) I would have preferred to say he has a poet's grasp of economics. Oh well.
Pedophile? I have no idea where you're getting that. I found nothing on Google. You wouldn't be indulging in "insulting and discrediting windbaggedry", would you? I suggest deleting.
Please see “Knowing with the Heart: Religious Experience and Belief in God” by Roy Clouser
Quite related, Pensees by Blaise Pascal is very good. Even the first ten pages give many thoughts to meditate upon. There is a feeling that he is opening a hitherto unknown, or forgotten, door of intuition, beaten down mercilessly by endless fruitless abstractions of modern mathematical rigor, or rather lost in somnambulistic wanderings in vanities of sciences. Even in that case when the soft heart and direct insight so often bestowed freely upon the fairer sex is hidden deep out of cowardice, this book lets those layers open, not out of guilt, but out of awe at something majestic in the firmament. Do we not, as created beings within creation, feel an urgent, almost nagging, feeling of being at the precipice of infinite mystery?
I think Hart may be basing his opinion of JBP on the theological gravity of his Biblical lectures, which he clearly states is not the point of them. They are Psychological explorations to uncover/rediscover the Jungian implications nested within. Nobody is going to Peterson for theology. The same way nobody is going to Hart for therapy.
So why should I believe this one guy who knows Greek over all the other guys who know Greek? Martin Luther and Philip Melancthon also worked from the Greek as have hundreds or thousands of scholars since, yet we are supposed to trust this one guy, David Bentley Hart, over all others? Seems to be an arrogant boaster trying to make a quick buck to me.
James Martin Luther added “faith alone.” In Romans chapter 3-28. He also wanted to take Hebrews, James and revelations because it contradicted his belief of salvation. Also he took out seven books from the Old Testament. Bro martin Luther is a heretic he made good points brining our corruption within the church I support him on that. Get woke
The masterpiece of ancient Christian literature is the Letter to Diognetus [c 130]. I am sure it is much too evangelical for the Orthodox Church. One reading will convince the reader that Justification is by faith. "“He himself took on Him the burden of our iniquities, He gave His own son a ransom for us, the holy One for transgressors, the blameless One for the wicked, the righteous One for the unrighteous, the incorruptible One for the corruptible, the immortal One for the mortal. For what other thing was capable of covering our sins than His righteousness. By what other one was it possible that we, the wicked and the ungodly, could be justified, than by the only Son of God? O SWEET EXCHANGE! O unsearchable operation! O benefits surpassing all expectation! That the wickedness of many should be hid in a single righteous One, and that the righteousness of One should justify many transgressors!” [Epistle to Diognetus 1X Emphasis added]
That quote is in complete harmony with the teachings of the Orthodox Church. I find it worrying, to say the least, that a pastor (I assume you are a pastor based on your username) is so utterly ignorant of other Christian traditions. Have seminaries really gone down hill so far that their graduates aren't even capable of decerning what is or isn't harmonious with other traditions, and the second largest one at that?
P.S. Is this connected with the video, or did you just hear the name Orthodox and couldn't help attacking like a child with a Lego tower who upon seeing another child's Lego tower can't help but knock it down?
Hart, the universalist?
Then he never understood rabbi Yeshua in the first place, radical Torah observance - not its abandonment for pagan ideas!!
Seems bitter he's only reached 5 people on the planet with his ... message?!?
Uh oh, buckos!
Shots fired.
Hart commented on Peterson's cross-functional approach as cleverly immune to expert critique. I don't remember him criticizing Peterson's Biblical interpretation.
D S17 Well, he doesn’t like capitalism, so he might think that is a valid criticism. But it is ignorant of him to assume that Peterson has risked nothing to get the following he has and has done it all for money.
Plural Where did he comment on that? All I heard were ad hominems and unsubstantiated assertions about Peterson’s motivations and impact.
I remember Hart saying that mixing psychology and neuroscience is effective because psychology experts don't criticize the neuroscience and neuroscientists don't criticize the psychology, so experts tend to leave Peterson's ideas alone. I've rewatched Hart's comments about Peterson a few times and I cannot find those comments anywhere!
The human memory is a horrifyingly malleable thing...
I guess I haven't watched enough Peterson to see him talk about neuroscience, unless psychology and evolutionary biology are just part of neuroscience. I've watch all the biblical lectures, and most of that is psychology, mythology, and evolutionary biology.
This Mr. Hart went off the rails with his comments on Peterson, then made it worse by showing himself to be an elitist. Ick.
Stick to translating and theology.
But, it was good listening to his area-of-expertise commentary.
This for real? Peterson is the worst for talking out his area.
It's ironic how Hart criticizes the new atheists, to me he seems like a comedic inversion of Christopher Hitchens. He has comes off as a complete ass, but without the wit, class, or comedy that Hitch has.
I'm also interested in his new translation though, I'm not knocking his work in his specific field.
You should read more Hart then
Also ... sort yourself out buddy, get up at an early hour, eat a healthy breakfast and not the carb rich diet you're obviously stuffing your face with, and try and better yourself vs taking others down with passive aggressive ad-hominems.
Hart is a sophist hack. Peterson would dismantle this tool like he was pulling apart pieces of Lego.
Wrath Oranos
😂😂😂
Do you think Peterson would slap him happily?
Wrath Oranos you clearly haven't tried pulling apart lego plates without a brick separator
Peterson would calmly ask him what his problem was and then politely agree on some inane point. And then he would expand that sphere of agreement until Hart’s initial objections to his work were shown to be based on nothing but Hart’s imagination.
I don't think you got the criticism of Peterson. Peterson links religious teachings to the idea of there being stories across cultures that are linked together due to inherent archetypes in humanity. This IS in stark contradiction to theology.
Illustrative interview as to why those who dwell in ivory towers should stay there so that we do not find out what a humorless lot they are. Having engaged with DBH articles with more or less benefit, I do not think I will be able to put this interview out of my mind reading him here forward. This, as well sf knowing he is a member of the Democratic Socialists of America. No wonder Peterson is under Hart's skin.
What a piece of crap, so Jordan Peterson is a hack because he makes money off of his product?! And most of that money gets funneled back into helping other people. It's not like you see him in like the best suits or with Rolexes or limousines or private jets. Not only that it took him years to write that book, sorry both books. I think this guy's a little jealous of Jordan Peterson's success.
Arrogant as heck. Geez.
After watching your video I was intrigued enough to look up a few of Hart's videos. He may be brilliant but his pride and arrogance renders him irrelevant. Only legitimate PHD's can even begin to understand his verbiage. And then they better be well versed in philosophy and theology. He may be a first rate mind but his soul is very much lacking. He allegorizes the interpretation of the Bible. Right there he completely loses me even without the monumental arrogance. Yeah the Bible contains allegory but man is not free to interpret that allegory by any other source than the Bible itself.
That's what the patristic allegorical method involves.
@@chanting_germ. I've heard from people I respect that one may learn a lot from Mr. Hart. Its too bad he's an arrogant asshat. I pray God would remove my spite, but not yet.
29:10
This guy is so arrogant that I can hardly stand to listen to him! Satan is NOT a lawyer; does he not believe in anything? I like his use of the word "cosmos". I think it keeps the meaning better. But that's about the only thing about this that I like. And what he says about Jordan Peterson is just insane! JP talks in a way that is relatable; he says things that make sense. THIS guy is dull and unengaging, and leaves me cold.
Diana Neuman quite so
Wow David is painfully condescending...great witness dude.
wonderful, more modern perversions...
Jacob Weston
What translations would you recommend? Can you offer any alternative suggestions?
You can't, can you? Because you're an unread half-wit who can do nothing more than type drive-by, generalizations in a comment section.
I said nothing about the King James, yet apostates know to attack God's word to fit "another" gospel...
This is based on the original greek. If you think this is a "perversion" maybe learn greek.
it actually wasn't. It was the first one sanctioned by the government [the king, in this case.] Wycliffe and Tyndale had done translations before this, and were killed for it.
Unfortunately a youtube comment here isn't going to convince these folks of the truth. But I'm with you, we have THE word of God providentially preserved and translated for us in English in the King James Bible, and none of these new translations can or will bear the fruit that book has. God bless.
His brothers Addison and Robert are childish and insufferable.
Seems like this guy he's interviewing doesn't fully get it. While there is plenty I disagree with re: Calvinism, the concept of original sin is NOT that we're guilty of our ancestors' sin, but that we are born with a sin nature... ie. We are prone to sin sometimes. This guy seems to be distorting the concept of original sin.
It isn't wise to base one's view of all protestant Christianity on Calvinism- which many protestant Christians disagree with.
He seems to want to find a difference there, too, where none exists between the Catholic and Orthodox conceptions of the Fall and Original Sin. A lot of polemical Orthodox won't allow any explanation of a doctrine except the Greek one and then only if it's in Greek. (They're a bit like Muslims that way.)
Because Straw men are easier to knock down tha honestly dealing with an opposing point of view.
Me want the translation
Knowles gives the guy an opportunity to plug his reimagining of the New Testament and the guy spends it sniping at JP. Okay buddy. This is the first Knowles video I’ve had to downvote.
Clearly a bunch of trolls below... intelligent nuanced individual on a more than slightly wacko pro-Trump American show.
His intelligent and nuanced views would be better appreciated if it didn't come pre-packaged with such a petty and arrogant attitude. Hard pass!
I'm fine with my KJV.
I mostly read from the KJV and the NKJ but translators have presuppositions. Presuppositions that often lead them to fudge the true meaning of the Greek or Hebrew. A good Greek dictionary is essential. Hebrew not so much but there are still words here and there the translators could have rendered differently.
Isn’t it incomplete? You are missing seven books!
No.
Hans-Jørgen Kristiansen look up the Septuagint!
@@Hyvelez One of the people involved in the creation of the KJV admitted to changing the Bible.
Hart doesn't believe God is knowable. Red flags.
All classical Christianity, Orthodox and Roman Catholic, believes God is in Himself unknowable and unapproachable, that His essence cannot be conceived and His infinity cannot be circumscribed.
Divinity is known only by revelation accommodated, analogically, to our finitude. God self-manifests in the world in His Logos by His Spirit, and we grow in knowledge by uniting with and participating in His operations.
I was afraid for a moment that Knowles would turn into a damn Mormon. Not that God wouldn't be gladdened by him finding the straight and narrow, but I don't exactly want him to represent our church.
This guy is so arrogant, the last thing we need is another translation. The king james is so much better than anything he could come up with its not even funny. If he's Catholic he clearly does not know or reverence the scriptures like he ought to anyway.
Artcore103 He is Christian not Catholic.
Lisa he said he hadn't celebrated Easter yet because he was doing lent, which is a Catholic thing. Some but very few protestants have appropriated lent.
Artcore103 Yes but Michael introduced him as a Christian. At least that's what I thought.
Lisa maybe Michael is Catholic, i don't know, but Catholics consider themselves Christian and unfortunately many protestants consider Catholics Christian as well, and also just depending on the context sometimes people will simply use the more general umbrella term Christian when referring to them. I get why, but personally i am always careful to be specific and refer to them as Catholic, as the differences are significant. But thank you i could be wrong about the guest, but that would only raise more questions about why he is participating in lent, which is not biblical and actually has clear pagan roots, with the ashes on the head and whatnot, i recommend anyone to look into it. We can never allow ecuminism to take over and blur the important distinctions between Catholicism and most other denominations. People died over those distinctions and for good reason.
Artcore103 He is Orthodox, I also highly suggest you to improve your knowledge of the Catholic Church to stop spreading lies about it
what's this, translation #379? give me a break. how can there be 'versions' of GOD's word anyway? there are over 300 'versions' out there already today and they ALL say something different. it would be funny if it were not so horrifying. i will stick with the tried and true King James Bible, but if you have itching ears, maybe you'll like the latest new new testament [rolls eyes].
thank you very much Crysus Bu, i understand that, but there are different manuscripts being used. that's the issue for me. textus receptus versus codex sinaiticus.
@@liwmld The creator of the textus receptus from which KJV new testament was translated admitted to changing the Bible.
U mean new teslament???... haaaaaha....
Watch out David, your jealousy is showing.