A side effect of his argument, is that he’s admitting that there are other gods. They are “weak”, apparently, but real. That’s an interesting point, considering that the current philosophy - as far as I’m aware - is that there has only ever been one god. I’d be curious to know how he aligns those two perspectives.
I agree, but most fundamental Christian just refer to these other gods and demons or something along that nature. I think you mean theology and not philosophy.
@@tim57243 Yup, I’ve seen it. My comment was more about the apologist’s tacit admission that there are multiple deities represented in the Bible. I don’t know if he realized that was the case, since “one god” is a pretty hard line in the sand for Christian apologists.
Doesn't necessarily mean that it's the specific youtubers philosophy, I think that we can presume that since They brought up the divine council that they Believe in the divine council
Something I've learned about theologians and apologists is that context is important to them as long as it's useful to them. They love to remind people of context, until the context no longer supports their view.
I explained this to a friend as How our modern sports teams use mascots! Just imagine if, when one team beat another, people actually thought that a giant invisible Cowboy really defeated a giant invisible Lion...😮
Don't want to beleaguer this point too much, yet I have to ask: What part of the video did he attack Dan personally and not his work? I didn't catch it.
@@timandmonica I would not call it personal attack, but in his videos on his channel he talks a lot about Dan as a person, and also spends minutes on his own education and how he knows what he is talking about, instead of simply adressing the issue... and this is where I appreaciate Dans work, he cares about the facst, not so much about the person bringing up a claim...
@@timandmonica I'd say one could say "personal attacks" include the flippant dismissal of Dan's assessments as if Dan is somehow being duplicitous or ignorant about the debate the original creator (OC) claims (beginning about 3:27), and perhaps the condescending "Dan's argument is _so weak_ that I'm gonna _grant_ him" and "your argument _still sucks"_ snark (about 4:16).
If I was convinced my god was all-powerful or maximally powerful, and I was resolved to force all evidence to fit this immutable conclusion (rather than let conclusions be drawn from evidence), then I would probably be daydreaming up what if scenarios just like the creator Dan is responding to.
Rashi explains Israel's iniquities were remembered, that they too worship pagan deities and are not worthy of miracles. Most Jewish children know this explanation.
@@MrMortal_Ra Permanent commandments can only be derived from the Pentateuch, as Deuteronomy 13:1 states: "Everything I command you that you shall be careful to do it. You shall neither add to it, nor subtract from it." It may be that a prophet will be sent by God to instruct certain people to do something which in that situation is neither commanded nor forbidden by Torah Law, for example: "Go out to war." However, this does not have the force of an eternal command.
I’ve noticed a trend in these videos. The apologists are always condescending. Every word they say is just full of holier-than-thou hubris. Dan speaks matter-of-factly and not down to the audience.
This Inphilosophersgarb doesn’t realize how outmatched he is. His sources are other apologists while Dan has the training and knowledge to read, understand and interpret the most reliable original texts himself.
I wish you had gone into the weeds a bit more about the Hebrew syntax there. I respect you as an expert on this stuff, but I do like it when I can *try* to follow along. I appreciate that might have bloated the video a bit, but hey, different strokes. Otherwise, great video, thank you!
I get confused sometimes when we insist that the Bible isn’t univocal, and thus we shouldn’t use other scriptures to interpret a passage, but other times we say the Hebrew Scriptures use certain words/conventions/themes that we should use to interpret a passage.
As a hypothetical, if a tendency arises in a culture to connote possession by appending nouns with " 's " we would not view this as an issue of assuming univocality. This would be a language development which exists independent of the text in question. If you find multiple usages of " 's " all connoting the same intention across periods before and after the text you are examining, it's just a language convention and you should expect to find it in all appropriate scenarios. Assuming univocality would be someone taking something from your comment as an indication that you agree with another commenter merely for being comments in the same comment section. Even if you were both discussing being confused, it would not mean that you are confused about the same thing or that you are both confused in the same way.
@@rainbowkrampus dang, the comment section univocally is a solid analogy. I haven’t thought about it in that way. Mmmm I’ll have to chew on that some more, but I think it works really well. Thanks!
Never thought I’d see something of academic significance come out of Macon, GA. That’s more impressive to me than the mental gymnastics of the apologist Dan is deconstructing.
Dan, as described in this video "Adonai, [is] the god of Israel". Here and in many other discussions of the Old Testament, God is specifically the god of the Israelites and is indifferent or hostile to other nations. But the Christian God today is the supreme being of all humanity. My question is when, where and how did this transition occur? Is this truly the same God? Is it ever specifically addressed in scripture?
Probably not. I heard apologists say that the verse makes more sense in Hebrew. Because Judah is actually the topic of the sentence, it should be Judah who wasn't able to defeat those with iron chariots. Doesn't make it any better though.
I don't know why people need God to be omnipotent so badly. Both Old and New Testaments are littered with God failing to account for himself, and this fact gives me huge relief
Man, i think that not even in the wildest dreams of those bronze age goat herders they could imagine that almost three thousand years after, people would discuss the gibberish that they wrote.
You must be unaware of Exodus 19:9: "Behold, I am coming to you in the thickness of the cloud, in order that the people hear when I speak to you, and they will also believe in you forever."
The impotence of foreign gods idea probably didn’t pop up until the Babylonian Captivity. 2 Kings was written before that, and, even if I have the sequence wrong, as we shan’t assume univocality, thus 2 Kings would not necessarily be bound to the weak-foreign-gods concept
I don't understand why the original creator didn't just say, "Maybe there's something the Israelites did wrong that wasn't in the text." It would be weird for some major sin to not be mentioned in the text, but it's definitely a possibility. As long as you don't assume that anything not in the Bible didn't happen, you could always just say, "Maybe there's more that didn't get recorded or that was somehow lost."
What a delightful exchange of ideas. In my opinion, Dr. Dan prevailed with reasonable scholarship logic reducing the cloud of probability to the facts on the ground. Respect to both men.
This is crazy....It is so clear that the text reads as YHWH lost this battle. Then the work of the apologist is to deny it, it can't mean that; so he twists himself as a pretzel , starting from his conclusion.
The apologist's reasoning really started to sound like an elaborate chain of events to a certain consequence when he stated that Israel's warfare antics lead to a sacrifice which then lead to a wrath, all orchestrated under a single entity. Even though a plain reading of the text does not suggest that at all. You must really grasp at straws to craft that elaboration rather than see it as a story that shows the enemy reacting effectively against the Israelite armies after the armies' deity stated explicitly to his prophet that Moab would be defeated
There are really some confusing contradictions in the Bible. Yeah why would the God be mad if the Moabite king sacrificed his heir? Did this God not know that this would happen? And why would he be angry with the Israelites? It was he who asked them to cut the trees and destroy the Moabite cities. Now the Moabite king was cornered in a dead end and had to resort to religious human sacrifice and God blamed the Israelites for causing this? And also in Leviticus 18, the Israelite God said one could not marry a woman and her sister together in case that they would be love enemies. The God said that was one of the reasons why he wiped out those foreign tribes because they practised this. What about Leah and Rachel?? Were they not sisters? 8 of the 12 tribes are their descendants.
@@stephenlitten1789 Christians I guess, same yesterday, today and forever stuff like that? But why would the Israelite God be mad at the Moabite king for sacrificing his heir son? Because the Israelite God cared about innocent children even of a different tribe all of a sudden after he had killed so many humans, young and mature? The Israelite God does fluctuate a lot.
@maklelan I find your arguments most reasonable but I’m confused why the author here didn’t chose to make up a more familiar excuse as to why the Israelites were defeated such as some wrongdoing on the part of Israel. I’m sure this dives into the realm of speculation but are there any scholarly ideas here? Perhaps it was not politically safe to blame the Israelite leadership in this case? Or was it really ok for YHWH to be potentially weak outside of his land even though that’s not something we see elsewhere?
I’m guessing the argument is that the author of the text simply recognized the existence of other gods like Qemosh, and that Qemosh of Moab could, would, and did overcome Israel’s god Yahweh with serious tribute given on home soil - and tried to downplay it somewhat, because said author was simply an Israelite still smarting from the loss. That’s the plain reading of the text Dr. McClellan makes, as I understand it at least!
It seems odd that anyone would care so much about this if they believed in one god. Do these apologists believe in the divine nature of other gods, and believe that the events in the Old Testament are actually the result of these gods defending those who sacrifice to them? They have to, to make such arguments.
Alright, now I know this dude is off his rocker. Chemosh? Asking for something from that sniveling nerd Bible god? Absurdity. Foolishness. When Chemosh wants something, he takes it.
All of this back and forth conjers visions of Spiderman v. Batman. If one dominates, it screws with the fanbase. It needs to be a draw so Chemosh and Yahweh can team up later to battle the forces of evil.
Even though it is stated (Deut. 20:19): “You shall not destroy its trees,” here He permitted it, for this is a contemptible and insignificant nation before Him. And so Scripture states (Deut. 23:7): “You shall not seek their welfare and their good.” These are the good trees that are among them.
In the first part of the response, Dan shows the destruction of trees law is only for nations within the land of Israel during the conquest of the promised land. The law doesn't apply outside the boundaries of Israel.
@@JosephNobles The Messiah will liberate the entire Biblical land of Israel from the Nile to the Euphrates. A major reason why Jews believe Jesus ain't him.
Really sad and disturbing when Christian apologistsattempt to retrofit ancient texts with contemporary religious norms and values. Also pathetic is when obviously uninformed amateurs feel totally comfortable and justified with arguing biblical texts and meanings with credentialed scholars. Smh...
Sow what it is - YHWH got angry because of some Israelite sin and failed to hand over Moab or was it because in Deut. he gave that land to Lot. Does this guy even listen to himself or is he too busy pulling 'not impossible' out of his arse?
It is permissible for a Gentile to read the twenty-four books of the Hebrew Bible, even with traditional explanations of the simple meaning (like the explanations by Rashi), in order to correctly understand the verses.
Tractate Sanhedrin 59a and Maimonides, Laws of Kings 10:9 rule that it is forbidden for Gentiles to delve into the rest of the Torah that is not about the Noahide Code. @@MrMortal_Ra
No , Dan but the person you've responding to in this video also has pathetic arguments: try responding to an actual scholar: i don't qualify but my arguments were actually credible and based on the whole chapter verses 1-27 . Keep debunking strawman arguments Dan as yours R incorrect also. God used the Pagan god to chastise sinful Israel in their sinful condition! God gave Judah and Edom the victory but prevented Israel from claiming any victory. The rath of Chemosh only effected sinful Israel. It was a divided kingdom Israel isn't Judah or Edom. YHWH still had 2 out of 3 kings in the fight: so how did he lose ? LOL 😂
Lol. Yes ! (Edit) Since you edited your comment to be more than just "No !" I'll edit mine to give context to your edited OP. Refer to my next comment.
He's responding to this person because they responded to him. How about you debate a scholar instead of wasting your time making comments while also making yourself seem like you are not coming at this with good faith?
Apologists have such a hard time letting the bible speak for itself.
A side effect of his argument, is that he’s admitting that there are other gods. They are “weak”, apparently, but real. That’s an interesting point, considering that the current philosophy - as far as I’m aware - is that there has only ever been one god. I’d be curious to know how he aligns those two perspectives.
I agree, but most fundamental Christian just refer to these other gods and demons or something along that nature.
I think you mean theology and not philosophy.
Good point.
You might be interested to watch Dan's video with title "There is no monotheism in the Bible".
@@tim57243 Yup, I’ve seen it. My comment was more about the apologist’s tacit admission that there are multiple deities represented in the Bible. I don’t know if he realized that was the case, since “one god” is a pretty hard line in the sand for Christian apologists.
Doesn't necessarily mean that it's the specific youtubers philosophy, I think that we can presume that since They brought up the divine council that they Believe in the divine council
Something I've learned about theologians and apologists is that context is important to them as long as it's useful to them. They love to remind people of context, until the context no longer supports their view.
I explained this to a friend as How our modern sports teams use mascots! Just imagine if, when one team beat another, people actually thought that a giant invisible Cowboy really defeated a giant invisible Lion...😮
I dunno, I've seen some pretty frenzied sports fans.
I wouldn't put such beliefs past them.
The wedge of cheese representing Green Bay has entered the chat.
He destroyed his own argument when he resorted to personal attacks. Granted, you’d already put his arguments on life support with your own reasoning.
Don't want to beleaguer this point too much, yet I have to ask: What part of the video did he attack Dan personally and not his work? I didn't catch it.
@@timandmonica I would not call it personal attack, but in his videos on his channel he talks a lot about Dan as a person, and also spends minutes on his own education and how he knows what he is talking about, instead of simply adressing the issue... and this is where I appreaciate Dans work, he cares about the facst, not so much about the person bringing up a claim...
@@timandmonica I'd say one could say "personal attacks" include the flippant dismissal of Dan's assessments as if Dan is somehow being duplicitous or ignorant about the debate the original creator (OC) claims (beginning about 3:27), and perhaps the condescending "Dan's argument is _so weak_ that I'm gonna _grant_ him" and "your argument _still sucks"_ snark (about 4:16).
I'm learning as much about apologetics as I am biblical history. Thanks Dan.
what did you find
If I was convinced my god was all-powerful or maximally powerful, and I was resolved to force all evidence to fit this immutable conclusion (rather than let conclusions be drawn from evidence), then I would probably be daydreaming up what if scenarios just like the creator Dan is responding to.
Rashi explains Israel's iniquities were remembered, that they too worship pagan deities and are not worthy of miracles. Most Jewish children know this explanation.
Nah. Israel not being worthy of Hashem's miracles says nothing about the power of Hashem. @@MrMortal_Ra
@@hrvatskinoahid1048why would he go back in his word in such a small timeframe? Why would you trust anyone that goes back in their word?
@@MrMortal_Ra Permanent commandments can only be derived from the Pentateuch, as Deuteronomy 13:1 states: "Everything I command you that you shall be careful to do it. You shall neither add to it, nor subtract from it." It may be that a prophet will be sent by God to instruct certain people to do something which in that situation is neither commanded nor forbidden by Torah Law, for example: "Go out to war." However, this does not have the force of an eternal command.
@@MrMortal_Ra There is no commandment in the Pentateuch to destroy Moab.
"If we assume God is good, then I can invent ways to interpret this passage to be consistent with God being good"
That's bible interpretation 101
You are so patient with these people. I would have lost it by now.
4:22 “I’m gonna grant him…”
The arrogance 😂
"I'm not inventing scenarios to make the text fit my beliefs. Now, if we imagine that God did this......"
"For the sake of the argument I will grant your position (even though it is weak), because I am generous"
Now Maybe, Maybe Maybe Maybe 😂
I’ve noticed a trend in these videos. The apologists are always condescending. Every word they say is just full of holier-than-thou hubris. Dan speaks matter-of-factly and not down to the audience.
Dan you sir are a hero for light and truth. Thank you sir
This Inphilosophersgarb doesn’t realize how outmatched he is. His sources are other apologists while Dan has the training and knowledge to read, understand and interpret the most reliable original texts himself.
I wish you had gone into the weeds a bit more about the Hebrew syntax there. I respect you as an expert on this stuff, but I do like it when I can *try* to follow along. I appreciate that might have bloated the video a bit, but hey, different strokes.
Otherwise, great video, thank you!
I get confused sometimes when we insist that the Bible isn’t univocal, and thus we shouldn’t use other scriptures to interpret a passage, but other times we say the Hebrew Scriptures use certain words/conventions/themes that we should use to interpret a passage.
As a hypothetical, if a tendency arises in a culture to connote possession by appending nouns with " 's " we would not view this as an issue of assuming univocality.
This would be a language development which exists independent of the text in question. If you find multiple usages of " 's " all connoting the same intention across periods before and after the text you are examining, it's just a language convention and you should expect to find it in all appropriate scenarios.
Assuming univocality would be someone taking something from your comment as an indication that you agree with another commenter merely for being comments in the same comment section. Even if you were both discussing being confused, it would not mean that you are confused about the same thing or that you are both confused in the same way.
@@rainbowkrampus dang, the comment section univocally is a solid analogy. I haven’t thought about it in that way. Mmmm I’ll have to chew on that some more, but I think it works really well. Thanks!
Using other passages for how the Grammar works, words are used, defined and understood, I think is the intention.
Never thought I’d see something of academic significance come out of Macon, GA. That’s more impressive to me than the mental gymnastics of the apologist Dan is deconstructing.
Dan, as described in this video "Adonai, [is] the god of Israel". Here and in many other discussions of the Old Testament, God is specifically the god of the Israelites and is indifferent or hostile to other nations. But the Christian God today is the supreme being of all humanity. My question is when, where and how did this transition occur? Is this truly the same God? Is it ever specifically addressed in scripture?
Boy that guy's gonna freak out when he reads Judges 1:19
Probably not. I heard apologists say that the verse makes more sense in Hebrew. Because Judah is actually the topic of the sentence, it should be Judah who wasn't able to defeat those with iron chariots. Doesn't make it any better though.
@@jackcimino8822 it really doesn't because either way YHWH can stand up to iron chariots
I don't know why people need God to be omnipotent so badly. Both Old and New Testaments are littered with God failing to account for himself, and this fact gives me huge relief
Man, i think that not even in the wildest dreams of those bronze age goat herders they could imagine that almost three thousand years after, people would discuss the gibberish that they wrote.
Let alone do so in defense of another religion.
@@rainbowkrampus Zing!
You must be unaware of Exodus 19:9: "Behold, I am coming to you in the thickness of the cloud, in order that the people hear when I speak to you, and they will also believe in you forever."
@@hrvatskinoahid1048 Quoting Hebrew fiction doesn't help you, champ.
Apologists have the same mental flaw as conspiracy theorists. Their standard is possibility, not plausibility or probability.
The impotence of foreign gods idea probably didn’t pop up until the Babylonian Captivity.
2 Kings was written before that, and, even if I have the sequence wrong, as we shan’t assume univocality, thus 2 Kings would not necessarily be bound to the weak-foreign-gods concept
Love ur work dan 😂❤
Bro wasn’t ready
I don't understand why the original creator didn't just say, "Maybe there's something the Israelites did wrong that wasn't in the text." It would be weird for some major sin to not be mentioned in the text, but it's definitely a possibility. As long as you don't assume that anything not in the Bible didn't happen, you could always just say, "Maybe there's more that didn't get recorded or that was somehow lost."
What a delightful exchange of ideas. In my opinion, Dr. Dan prevailed with reasonable scholarship logic reducing the cloud of probability to the facts on the ground. Respect to both men.
I like the way you generously call these people "biblical scholars." I prefer MrDeity's approach of calling them "Excusists" (not even apologists)
Nice work Dan!! Whether he accepts it or not, he got cooked!! Cook Dan, cook!!
This is crazy....It is so clear that the text reads as YHWH lost this battle. Then the work of the apologist is to deny it, it can't mean that; so he twists himself as a pretzel , starting from his conclusion.
The apologist's reasoning really started to sound like an elaborate chain of events to a certain consequence when he stated that Israel's warfare antics lead to a sacrifice which then lead to a wrath, all orchestrated under a single entity.
Even though a plain reading of the text does not suggest that at all. You must really grasp at straws to craft that elaboration rather than see it as a story that shows the enemy reacting effectively against the Israelite armies after the armies' deity stated explicitly to his prophet that Moab would be defeated
There are really some confusing contradictions in the Bible. Yeah why would the God be mad if the Moabite king sacrificed his heir? Did this God not know that this would happen? And why would he be angry with the Israelites? It was he who asked them to cut the trees and destroy the Moabite cities. Now the Moabite king was cornered in a dead end and had to resort to religious human sacrifice and God blamed the Israelites for causing this?
And also in Leviticus 18, the Israelite God said one could not marry a woman and her sister together in case that they would be love enemies. The God said that was one of the reasons why he wiped out those foreign tribes because they practised this.
What about Leah and Rachel?? Were they not sisters? 8 of the 12 tribes are their descendants.
Who ever said YHWH was consistent?
@@stephenlitten1789 Christians I guess, same yesterday, today and forever stuff like that? But why would the Israelite God be mad at the Moabite king for sacrificing his heir son? Because the Israelite God cared about innocent children even of a different tribe all of a sudden after he had killed so many humans, young and mature? The Israelite God does fluctuate a lot.
@@emilyly Nah. The Hebrew god was pissed because the Hebrews didn't have a crown prince present to match the bid.
That argument at the 4 minute mark: Ooooo big stretch
@maklelan I find your arguments most reasonable but I’m confused why the author here didn’t chose to make up a more familiar excuse as to why the Israelites were defeated such as some wrongdoing on the part of Israel. I’m sure this dives into the realm of speculation but are there any scholarly ideas here? Perhaps it was not politically safe to blame the Israelite leadership in this case? Or was it really ok for YHWH to be potentially weak outside of his land even though that’s not something we see elsewhere?
I’m guessing the argument is that the author of the text simply recognized the existence of other gods like Qemosh, and that Qemosh of Moab could, would, and did overcome Israel’s god Yahweh with serious tribute given on home soil - and tried to downplay it somewhat, because said author was simply an Israelite still smarting from the loss.
That’s the plain reading of the text Dr. McClellan makes, as I understand it at least!
Why would an all-powerful God need other Gods to exist? Unless, of course, he was not all-powerful and was simply one of the many other Gods.
My goodness, he's very sure of himself.
That kid goes on and on, and on yet again, ad infitum.
I don't care if it rains or freezes 'cause I've got my exegesis on the dashboard of my truck.
It seems odd that anyone would care so much about this if they believed in one god. Do these apologists believe in the divine nature of other gods, and believe that the events in the Old Testament are actually the result of these gods defending those who sacrifice to them? They have to, to make such arguments.
What an unpleasant person.
Alright, now I know this dude is off his rocker.
Chemosh? Asking for something from that sniveling nerd Bible god?
Absurdity. Foolishness.
When Chemosh wants something, he takes it.
All of this back and forth conjers visions of Spiderman v. Batman. If one dominates, it screws with the fanbase. It needs to be a draw so Chemosh and Yahweh can team up later to battle the forces of evil.
I'm glad we spend so much time arguing about myths.
IKR? Now if you'll excuse me, I've got a "JLA vs Avengers" debate to win!😉
My friend, you've just described American politics since 2016.
@@HandofOmegasUpERmAn sOLoS (he’s my guy tho)
🤘
I don't see why it would be weird if god is angry at someone for doing something he told them to do. Didn't he do that with Balaam in Numbers 22?
Maybe if I act really smug and midrash like wild, then I can save the Bible from itself 🤔
At least they're in agreement that the Bible is _not_ monotheistic.
Even though it is stated (Deut. 20:19): “You shall not destroy its trees,” here He permitted it, for this is a contemptible and insignificant nation before Him. And so Scripture states (Deut. 23:7): “You shall not seek their welfare and their good.” These are the good trees that are among them.
@@MrMortal_Ra I don't know where you saw that written or implied in my comment.
In the first part of the response, Dan shows the destruction of trees law is only for nations within the land of Israel during the conquest of the promised land. The law doesn't apply outside the boundaries of Israel.
@@JosephNobles Biblical Israel is from the Nile to the Euphrates.
@@hrvatskinoahid1048 Oh, my. No king of Israel or Judah has ever ruled all the territory between the Nile and the Euphrates.
@@JosephNobles The Messiah will liberate the entire Biblical land of Israel from the Nile to the Euphrates. A major reason why Jews believe Jesus ain't him.
Honestly the amount of time wasted because some can’t let go of biblical literalism is mind boggling.
Really sad and disturbing when Christian apologistsattempt to retrofit ancient texts with contemporary religious norms and values.
Also pathetic is when obviously uninformed amateurs feel totally comfortable and justified with arguing biblical texts and meanings with credentialed scholars. Smh...
Sow what it is - YHWH got angry because of some Israelite sin and failed to hand over Moab or was it because in Deut. he gave that land to Lot. Does this guy even listen to himself or is he too busy pulling 'not impossible' out of his arse?
What kind of God takes sides in trivial human tribalism? What a petty little God!
Did Chemosh really defeat YHWH?
Who cares?
first you have to believe the written narrative is true in the first place
🤙
All of this feels backwards. Like you start with the conclusion and justify it.
If you use enough maybes and make up your own view of god then you can make yourself.
It is permissible for a Gentile to read the twenty-four books of the Hebrew Bible, even with traditional explanations of the simple meaning (like the explanations by Rashi), in order to correctly understand the verses.
Tractate Sanhedrin 59a and Maimonides, Laws of Kings 10:9 rule that it is forbidden for Gentiles to delve into the rest of the Torah that is not about the Noahide Code. @@MrMortal_Ra
Permissible?
@@MrMortal_Ra No, I am a Gentile telling you the Torah belongs to the Jews.
@@MrMortal_Ra Well, my name states I am a Croatian Noahide. The Jewish Bible with Rashi is basic learning, not delving.
Lol.
No , Dan but the person you've responding to in this video also has pathetic arguments: try responding to an actual scholar: i don't qualify but my arguments were actually credible and based on the whole chapter verses 1-27 .
Keep debunking strawman arguments Dan as yours R incorrect also.
God used the Pagan god to chastise sinful Israel in their sinful condition!
God gave Judah and Edom the victory but prevented Israel from claiming any victory.
The rath of Chemosh only effected sinful Israel.
It was a divided kingdom Israel isn't Judah or Edom.
YHWH still had 2 out of 3 kings in the fight: so how did he lose ? LOL 😂
Because Quetzalcoatl actually took them both down simultaneously, thanks to his superior Kung Fu.
Lol.
Yes !
(Edit) Since you edited your comment to be more than just "No !" I'll edit mine to give context to your edited OP.
Refer to my next comment.
You're right, El took YHWH and put him in a time out.
He's responding to this person because they responded to him.
How about you debate a scholar instead of wasting your time making comments while also making yourself seem like you are not coming at this with good faith?
Dan's goal is to fight against misinformation about religion, not debate someone whose knowledge is on par with his.