Thank you for being you, Dan. I simply have no more energy to pursue these conversations for any direct benefit to myself, and am grateful beyond words that you are young, able, and committed to this. You just make my days. (And relief that someone is carrying this torch so well.)
I'm not a Christian, but I do find Christianity fascinating. I grew up in the church, hearing a lot of misinformation and a lot of things that seemed to contradict each other. It's refreshing to hear a scholarly voice on the matter. I love Religion for Breakfast, but he doesn't do a very good job of discussing modern interpretations of The Bible contrasted with the original intent. I really appreciate you filling in some gaps.
While he is educated, he is not a "scholar" ...and mis/dis/malinformation comes from all sides. We can tell this as he states, "most scholars" and their claims, there are disagreements to this day as more evidence and study continues. The claims are just that...claims for and against the authenticity of different books.
@@stevepaige7557 You're being disingenuous in saying Dan is not a scholar of the bible when he clearly states this at the beginning of each video he makes. That would be equivalent to you being a doctor spending years of study and practice and giving a professional medical opinion based on facts and data, consequently, some Joe blow off the street with no credentials at all says you're educated but you're no doctor by any stretch of the imagination and your opinion is merely stems from disinformation and misinformation.
Listened to the podcast today on a long bike ride. You mentioned people saying they have found healing in your message. I have also found freedom. Freedom from fear, freedom from denial, freedom from theological contortionism trying to make univocality and inerrancy work.
The bible is only univocal in the sense that the church collected and edited these books into a single volume. It is the church's work from start to finish, and should always be read with that in mind.
I love you Dan! Well, I love your videos. Especially these short ones that deal with one specific question each. Really well thought-out, to the point, clear and strong. Keep 'em coming!
This is something that I've asked myself many times when I was a believer. What is this author referring to when he says all scripture if it wasn't compiled yet? Now I know. Thank you so much!
@@scambammer6102 At the time of Jesus and Paul, the Torah [the Five books of Moses], the Prophets, and the Psalms were accepted as canon by Jews. In one of the gospels, there is even a reference to the same but not by listed names. However, the exact form of the Jewish canon was not finalized until much later as Dan mentions. The first five books and the Psalms we now have were there, Isiaih and most of the major prophets we have now were there but there were other books added or rejected depending on which Jewish faction you were looking at. You see this in the Dead Sea Scrolls, the texts found in other caves not exactly at the Dead Sea but often tossed in with them, and some other books that did not make it into the Jewish Canon but did make it into the Catholic Bible or Protestant Bible or ultimately were left out of all three bibles. Likewise, when one looks at the Dead Sea Scroll collections, scholars have determined that of the various Isaiah scrolls [or fragments of scrolls] there are differences between the different versions. If I am remembering correctly, the Great Isaiah Scroll is very close to the modern version but not exact. So, when it comes to the scriptures Paul and the gospel authors are referring to, we have a general idea of what Jewish scriptures they are referring to but not exact except for the bits they refer to in the gospels. Likewise, when early Christians refer to the Jewish scriptures, they are going off the Septuagint, not the Hebrew. The problem there is that we know that one of the Ptolomeys had Jewish scholars translate the first five books long before Jesus was born for the Alexandria Library. There are references to later scrolls of Jewish prophets and the Psalms being translated into Greek and these are also referred to as part of the Septuagint. But what was translated, when it was done, who did it, and whether the copies in existence now are accurate reflections of the originals of those works cannot be established.
Scripture is determined by the church that collected, edited, and canonized these texts. It's also the church that tells us what Paul (or Paul's scribe) is referring to in 2nd Timothy 3:16. The Bible was never meant to be a free for all.
thanks, Dan. It was such a shock to me when I found out decades ago that, nope, Moses didn't write the first chapters of the Bible. Ever since then, I've been fascinated hearing what others have learned, such as yourself. It's amazing that most people know so little about one of the most important things in our lives. This video was wonderfully concise.
Oddly enough (and why I find the 'God breated' bit such a distraction), is that if we edit it slightly, to get All Scripture is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. Then that is a sensible and less problematic statement. By removing the temptation to resort to inerrency and literalism, and so that one must think through every statement, and ask why it is true, and in what sense it is true, even if it is true at all.
I like all this but I disagree about the Jewish canon. You said it wasn't established till the 4th/5th/6th centuries, which i think is a reference to the Talmudic canon list in Baba Bathra 14b (which counts 24 works). Isn't there decent evidence from Josephus and various Christian authors like Origen that Hellenistic Jews were using a 22 book canon that had very similar contents but in a different order (going back to the 1st century)? There is a saying in the Gospel of Thomas "24 prophets spoke in Israel" and I have wondered if that's an early reference to the 24 book version as well.
I grew up in a Baptist children's home and they sent me to a Baptist college, Belmont and Nashville. As a 17-year-old freshman I was required to take Old testament history where I learned about all the books that were taken out of the Bible and so forth and how they don't even know who wrote most of it. I had a great teacher
@@twopreachersinapew Oh look, a dishonest Non-Response, from a Biased Christian Pastor/Preacher. Color me utterly and entirely Unsurprised, I guess. What you said was *Far Closer* to Literal 'nothing' than Dan's statements ever were. But then again, you're not in the Business of 'literal', huh? Just in the Business of Metaphor, Allegory, and other forms of EXCUSE-Making Eisegesis.
@@twopreachersinapew If you truly believe such a blatantly bullshit statement of Self-Confirming Slander as that, then you're Even More 'Lost' than Christians think most Nonbelievers to be.
It really doesn't even say "Scripture," it just says "graphas" which means "writings." The idea of canonical "scripture" didn't even exist yet, but people in antiquity still had a reverence for writing in general and thought it had a certain power. That phrase is praising a medium, not a specific body of work. It's like someone saying "All movies are great." This is "All books are great."
Yes! Someone actually gets it. And earlier in 2 Timothy the author even refers to people who only make use of a limited corpus of writings as children, LOL.
@@waynemv You are a child in God's eyes. You are a spiritual child as you don't understand Spiritual things. Even now it's obvious you don't. Spiritual things are not bound by age. Try stop being a victim. God Bless you and your family
Moreover, it's far more superstitious of a judgement than Just 'great'/'good'. After all, the whole 'god-breathed' thing was all about 'Spiritual' Animism (effectively), to say that ALL Life and All WORDS & LANGUAGES were just this kind of Magical, Mystical, THING that was powered by the Magically-invisible Wind/Air/'Spirit'.
The bible was collected and edited to be a single volume with univocal meaning, this was one of the duties of the church. Since the church is responsible for the bible, it too is the only means we have of understanding it.
(And you can factor in the assumption that Paul wrote it, or replace 'Paul' by 'the author of the epistle' as necessary, the nature of the question remains.)
This is the topic that started my schism. That story is long. But basically the term “Divine Intervention” is a catch all to explain everything. God intervened and guided the disciples hand, thus the literal word. God intervened with regards to Noah, and the platypus, and physically placed it on Australia. This argument was with my sister, who is a minister. We were taught in Sunday school that the biblical stories were to be used as reflections, not literal. But she changed her views. This was about 30 years ago. I didn’t realize what changed. But it was the beginning of Christian nationalism. The whole foundation shifted and I no longer fit. The church left me.
If 2 Tim 3:16 refers to "scripture" but it's not referring to the OT or NT as we know it, then what scripture is it referring to? And, even though the full Jewish canon wasn't established yet, at least the Torah was well established by the time 2 Tim 3:16 was written, no?
My question is: If Christian s and Muslims believe God gave Torah to Moses on Sinai. Then they believe God made a mistake and changed mind about eternal covenant made on Sinai and instead sends a man god idol Trinity pagan human sacrifice for sin to replace Torah laws with a Greek new testament? Quran then later then book of Mormon added..
The New Testament writings explain why the covenant at Sinai had to be replaced by the new covenant dedicated by Jesus. And Jesus was, according to the Bible, not a God as the Trinity teaching portrays him. He was man, born miraculously, but still a man who shared our human nature and temptations. The difference was that he did not sin, and that made him a perfect sacrifice for the sins of mankind. He wasn't a human sacrifice in the pagan sense. But, he willingly allowed himself to be killed. And because he was sinless, he was like the unblemished animal offered in sacrifice under the Law of Moses. That Law could never completely remove sin, because sin offering needed continually to be offered, and atonement each year. But God provided Jesus as the one time offering for all men.
@@eddieyoung2104 I don't believe God made a mistake changed mind about eternal covenant made on Sinai.. Or it's not a "God" but a liar. People of Ninveh forgiven no sacrifice needed for sin s.
@@Nudnik1 I don't believe God made a mistake either. I don't think God makes a mistake just because he decides to make a new covenant. After all he does say in Jeremiah that he intended to do so. Otherwise we could say that God made a mistake when he gave the covenant at Sinai, because it should have remained like it was with Abraham. And if you don't think sacrifice is needed for sin, then are you not yourself changing what God commanded at Sinai? In other words, you don't allow for God to change anything, but it's acceptable for you to do so.
@@eddieyoung2104 That would be a cruel fake God ... Who made everyone follow eternal laws then 1500 years later sends a idol Trinity pagan human sacrifice Calvary to replace Torah laws with a Greek new testament.. No thanks .
Me too. Just remember that everything is negotiated and renegotiated even within the restoration. You need to find the authority within you and from ethical science and appropriate revelation to discover and nurture what's right and true for you and your family. This may or may not be at odds with fellow congregants or upper leaders. Keep on your journey!
@Dorothy Say I think he has to be somewhat careful. Bottom line, most LDS people won't learn or listen about any of it unless he is active LDS. Heck, I moved to a tiny town 5 years ago near Ephraim, and a lady actually said in church that the Bible said women were not supposed to speak, so even though we may not like the idea, it's what we're supposed to do. I'm glad he's starting with something that most dont find all the way true anyway. Hopefully, once that barrier is broken, people will be able to learn more about the BOM. Hopefully!
@@dorothysay8327 He's brought it up before. It should be noted that the context around both are very different and his wheel house in terms of research/academia isn't LDS scripture. Which may be part of the reason it's not focused on as much. It's also not a more universally interesting topic with nearly as much academic focus and scholarship outside of lds circles. It would be interesting, but I recognize that part of that interest is largely because I'm LDS too. He does have a couple papers that are more lds specific on his website and a few videos you can find sprinkled throughout.
It might be hard for Dan, give him time. Or it might be far too easy. Joseph Smith wrote all that stuff and we have good evidence to back that up. It isn’t nearly as interesting a puzzle.
@@philsphan4414 the fact that LDS doctrine changed and changes incredibly fast, especially when new leadership takes over, shows that prophets, apostles, and restoration scripture is not univocal and messy. LDS history is absolutely fascinating
@@SynThenergy Yes, but it’s history. It’s in English. We know who did what for the most part. Dan’s specialty is more of a puzzle and might be more fun for him given his background.
I’d love to hear Dan’s personal views more than any academic take: how he navigates within his community when his values don’t square with church values, where he hopes it will move in the future, the role he hopes it may play in our country- basically all the elephant in the room questions that he has chosen not to dive into. Or maybe I’m wrong and he doesn’t find any of that conflict difficult. Idk, would love to hear.
@@philsphan4414I'm writing this 8 months after your remarks, and as of my reply to you he has done a three-parter on Mormon Stories, so check it out if you haven't already.
This is further compounded by the fact there is no one doctrine of inspiration or the scriptures within Christian communities. Compare Sola Scriptura to the Orthodox doctrine of the scriptures. Even within the Protestant community there has been large disagreements. The debates over biblical inerrancy easily show a wide range of beliefs on this topic. There is wide disagreement if you look at Christian history and today over the Bible within Christianity.
People don't know the difference between "inspired by " and "written by" and in addition, very few actually take the time to go deep in study, if they did they would soon find out just how wrong many of their teachers had been about a lot of things now taken for granted to be true. When you try to apply scripture incorrectly you don't get the result God intended for you, and the level of biblical ignorance is inevitable if everyone thinks it's so easy! I have actually spoken with some of these people, uninterested in truth they much prefer their tradition.
@@SicMundus7 In other words "God iNTENDED That You Interpret it ONLY in the Way that * *I* * Like and Am Comfortable With, a way which Allows *Me* to Continue Maintaining My Belief Without Personal Scrutiny, Question, and Awkward Difficulty or Discomfort".
There are all kinds of critical nonsense about different authors and such. “Scholars” are just as lost as everyone else.. just like the “scholars” that said that Daniel wasn’t written when it was believed to be written because the prophesy was too accurate… than the Dead Sea scrolls came out and shut that up. Now they just don’t believe. Same as this jargon. Non belief is nothing new. God resists the proud and exalts the humble. The fact that people study the Bible and don’t see the Godly magnificence of it shows the hardness of peoples hearts and how most just choose not to believe. There are “scholars” that would shred this statement but it doesn’t matter. It’s up to you to believe and search for God.
The Aramaic text says: "Every SCRIPTURE (book, writing) which was written by THE SPIRIT (inspiration) is PROFITABLE (beneficial, advantageous, useful) for teaching & for correction & for uprightness & for the discipline which is in justice" (2 Tim. 3:16 P'shitta). Paulus narrates from NT Books & calls them Scripture (1 Cor. 15:3-8). So it would be wrong to conclude that Paulus only had an Old Testament Book in mind when he mentions Scripture. Paulus often tells us he wrote his Book / Letter at the beginning, in statements such as: "[From] Paulus, a messenger (missionary) of Yeshua the Anointed One by the will of God & by the promise of the [everlasting] life which is IN (by) Yeshua the Anointed One." (2 Tim. 1:1; CF ALSO: Col. 1:1; etc.). There is no reason to believe that Paulus didn't write the 13 Catholic EPISTLES (Letters). The scholarly consensus among Christians & the Church is that Paulus did write all those letters. The [uninspired or unauthentic] ones he didn't write were left out of the NT. The Doctrine of Addai ALSO lets us know that the Thirteen Letters of Paulus, which included Hebrews, are Scripture (Addai 1:79 / 46:8-16). The writer of the "Letter to the Hebrews" writes in the first person; as if the readers knew who this writer was. The Church has identified this writer as Paulus. Details about the writer being in Italy and who also knew about Timotheos being released from prison also indicate that Paulus is the author (Heb. 13:18-19, 22-24). Finally, Petros (Peter), as you mentioned, acknowledges EPISTLES (Letters) written by Paulus (2 Pet. 3:15-16). The Greek word THEOPNEUSTOS [θεόπνευστος] literally means: "God-breathed" hence: "INSPIRED BY GOD (Divine Inspiration)." The meaning of Greek words are often determined by their usage meaning(s) versus what words make up the composite word [verb].
So the whole the Bible has no inherent meeting or authority argument seems to be based on a post modernist/reconstruction theory/methodology sort of a word interaction thing where it literature has no inherent meeting unless it has been assigned meaning.
It would be ironic if the writer of that verse meant scripture is a “living collection”, therefore my humble letter and later additions should be added to yours.
You're not very fun at Christmas parties, I'd bet. Just kidding, you'd be welcome at ours anytime. You do superb work. I still can't get over the retro t-shirts you often wear.
So are we not suppose to have an understanding of the Old Testament as a basis for understanding the New? And wouldn't any authority start with the Old? Either the Jews are God's chosen people who he chose to reveal his word, power, and authority through or not? Help me see what I'm missing here. I'm a busy guy and really don't have much time to dig into these things. Thanks Dan.
That is why we are to not lean on our own understanding as the maker of this video does. Just read the Bible. What does it say? Do that and believe that. A little background on myself, I wasn't always a Christian and actually used to parrot all kinds of nonsense about the Bible that I heard from people like the maker of this video. What happened? God corrected, and it hurt, a lot, and I thank him every day for doing so. God bless.
As a Seventh Day Adventist, I totally agree that you must understand the OT before you can understand the NT. That’s why we spend a huge amount of time studying both. Many topics are discussed in the NT that assume the reader understands the OT without mentioning particulars. Paul does this a lot. One example is when He says “one person honors one day while another person honors another.” Most people assume he’s referring to the sabbath, but no mention of the sabbath or law is mentioned by him here. But eating is mentioned. So since no sabbath, but food, or lack of, pertains to fasting, so if one is assuming, then fasting is more reasonable here. Some fasted certain days, while others fasted on different days.
'Scripture' just means the writings we decided to grant special status. It kind of seems like this is a question of whether it should be interpreted to be self-referential or not as well. Even without knowing that Paul did not write it it still wouldn't be obvious that it was talking about itself. "Everything I write is inspired by God" seems pretty bold.
God-breathed is actually a much stronger word than inspired making this passage a stronger claim to biblical authority. If you read it in context, the passage is about religious text that Timothy read when he was young that testify about Jesus. Either they both had an understanding that the OT was about Jesus (typology, Angel of the Lord, messianic prophecy) or they were taking about NT writings which exegete the OT passages that are thought to point to Jesus. Either way, there is an authoritative claim about writings about Jesus believed to be from God. Authoritative claims are found in many places in the Bible. Joshua claims the law should not depart from your mouth. Revelation promises calamity to those who add or takeaway from scripture. Jesus claims to be the only true revelation of the Father and quotes scripture as if it were authoritative. To prove your point, you would have to prove Jesus is not trustworthy and did not rise from the dead.
geno etc: "God-breathed is actually a much stronger word that inspired ... etc" - Are you being serious? Do you REALLY mean that if the language used is "stronger" (in your estimation) that makes the claims of the text more authoritative? I have heard some desperate arguments in my time, but this is at a new level of desperation.
@@genotriana3882 I think it is all poetic, metaphorical language to bolster belief in a celestial magician/judge. It is all made up. Wonderful stories, but stories just the same.
@@Nai61a I appreciate your opinion. That was what I used to believe for a long time. Have you looked into how the stories of the resurrection became so popular in the first century? Some of Jesus’ disciples made incredible sacrifices to spread that story of why His body was missing from the tomb. It’s hard to imagine that someone would give up everything and die for a story that they knew was not true.
@@genotriana3882 I understand that the resurrection stories became popular as time passed, rather as the stories of Muhammad or those of Joseph Smith became popular. As to the sacrifices, have you looked into the stories of these disciples and their sacrifices? I saw an interesting video about this, but I am not sure where. It might have been Paulogia. If you are not familiar with his channel, it is definitely worth exploring. But the point is, people will make sacrifices for what they BELIEVE to be true. This does not mean that their beliefs are well-founded, however.
Dan is using wishful thinking. He's not using facts. Mark 12:36 KJV For David himself said *by the Holy Ghost,* The Lord said to my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool. Acts 1:16 KJV Men and brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, *which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake* before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus.
@gekksvide0 I already did prove my point. When Jesus said David spoke "by the Holy Ghost" what do you think that means? It obviously means David's words are divinely inspired. They're God's words. Humans are the pen in God's hand. That's how prophecy can come to pass as written. Hebrews 10:7 KJV Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.
@@TruthSpeaks- a perfect example of exactly what Dan is speaking of in the video. The author of Mark ripped a fragment of Psalm 110 completely out of context and reinterpreted it to refer to the Moshiach, implying the text applies to Jesus. Then, later Christians trotted in and reinterpreted the text even further to apply to a divine Jesus who is part of a Trinity that was not even formulated until roughly 300 years after Jesus died. Any 1st Century Jew familiar with the Hebrew text of Psalm 110 would have found the words Mark places in the mouth of Jesus in that passage absurd on their face. But a 21st-century Christian who does not know Hebrew and reads them in English will read into them their reinterpreted meaning developed long after Jesus was dead and buried. And that is why "TruthSpeaks" is using wishful thinking and ignoring facts.
@@johnpetry5321 Are you hearing yourself? Mark didn't place words in Jesus' mouth. He's writing down what Jesus had said, not making Him say something. Jesus there points to the scripture being inspired by the Holy Ghost. It's not the only place either (Acts 1:16 & Acts 28:25). In terms of the Trinity, that's pointed out in many places. Starting at Genesis 1:26 and going forward.
I've got several questions. First, why do people think that the pastoral epistles were written well after Paul died and written by someone pretending to be Paul? Why weren't they discredited early on, if they were in fact not written by Paul? What were considered as Scriptures when 2 Timothy says they were "God-breathed"? That seems important to this discussion. Also, if God is the giver of life, why wouldn't Scriptures then be inspired by God, if they are life giving? Finally, just saying there is no univocality doesn't prove there is no univocality. So... perhaps show how the pastoral epistles disagree with the rest of Paul, hm?
@@gekksvide0 well... You answered one question, but it brings up another. If someone were writing, pretending to be Paul, why wouldn't they try to make it match more with Paul's writing style? Wouldn't that make more sense than trying to pass off a different writing style as Paul's?
I think the Bible ✝ is univocal in the same way ChatGPT is univocal or dungeons in a dungeon crawler are univocal. It is heavily *randomly generated,* but whenever *the programmer* cares about something, it sticks *rigidly* to it. It also breaks convention on special tiles. Such as maintaining humans being kosher but *only if you think about it* even to the extent of picking a water eating restriction that avoids counting humans as an aquatic animal you cannot eat.
A view having an 'academic consensus' or having most scholars believe it, doesn't mean it is true. It assumes that the majority must be correct, and the Bible shows many times that the right way is in the minority. Also outside of the Bible, in history many times the majority turn out to be wrong. Majority must be right, is a basic human way of thinking, because it's just easier to assume that more people thinking or doing something must mean it's right. Most people prefer to go with the tide, and that only teaches us to give more investigation to something before it is accepted. Paul was writing letters to different congregations at different times, dealing with different issues. So, he's not always going to be saying the same things, and naturally concentrates on the issues affecting the different audiences. Also If his writing style varies from letter to letter, which I believe is one objection, then that is only natural for someone over time.
I agree. I am no writer but could easily have multiple writing styles based on the emotions I was experiencing at the time. Not to mention, Paul was growing and active in God every single day. I don’t think we have a legitimate reason to discount them as Paul’s simply because they have different styles. But I haven’t looked into the subject myself. Like you alluded to, the general consensus at the university level is wrong on a LOT of topics.
@@KevindusT360 When I said 'the Bible shows many times that the right way is in the minority', I was referring to events in the Bible where the majority was in error, and the minority were in the right. For example, in the great flood, only eight were saved. In the wilderness journey, Caleb and Joshua were the only ones of their generation allowed to enter the land. When Israel sunk into idolatry, the faithful were very few. And in Jesus' day, only a minority of people believed in him. We can also add Jesus' words about the broad way leading to destruction, and only few finding the narrow way leading to life. And in answer to the second question, I would say John the apostle gives the best advice. '...believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God...' (1 John 4:1-3). Spirit here referring to the mind and words of men, which are to be assessed according to the rule John gives in the passage.
Dan, the data you present has changed the way I view the bible. I am a pentecostal christian and that won't change any time soon, but I have changed my way of thinking. I no longer say "this is the word of God" when holding the bible, but I say there are instances when reading it where we do come across the word(s) of God.
I think the writer of the comment was speaking from his point of view. Because if God exists, then the whole Bible has to be true or he believes in the wrong religion. That is a weak answer when dealing with an atheist
It's also a weak answer when referring to that verse in 2 Timothy as the verse has zero reference to the comenter's gospels and the rest of the NT or even the christian canon of the OT.
@@jaclo3112 No. The verse is part of the whole Bible which should be 100% correct if it’s the word of God. What is in the Bible is what God intended. You can’t say part of it is wrong.
@@augustinjulius2978 so either the bible is the words of men pretending to be gods, or the christian gods are monumentally stupid, inconsistent and morally depraved.
Let’s assume for a second that this was written by Paul the apostle, this is traditional teaching. He very obviously was NOT referring to his own letters, and we really don’t know exactly which writings the author was talking about. This actually renders the verse irrelevent to today, there is no sufficient context anymore to give it meaning.
People who respond to you negatively citing these verses often do so with an absolutely ahistorical view of the Bible. It grates on one’s patience that someone could remain religious yet ignore the history of the true development of their favored text and the religious movements surrounding it.
1 Corinthians 1:18 King James Version 18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
I'm intrigued. Do you have sources of your main claim that 1st and 2nd Timothy was written after Paul's death? In addition, I think you have the assumption Paul taught against the Torah which he never did. This is a misunderstanding of correct doctrine passed down from the Catholic church to discredit the Jews. I do agree with your assumption that it is referring to the Septuagint for the most part. All the Torah, Prophets, Poetic books, and the Apocrypha are included. This passage addresses the misunderstanding of Paul's intent to explain Grace while also saying that his letters can be viewed as scripture. Therefore, beloved, looking forward to these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, without spot and blameless; and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation-as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures. II Peter 3:14-16 NKJV I do thank you for your demeanor and way you research. Keep researching as the noble minded Bereans my friend.
Of course the Bible is what TV preachers say it is. We know that because the Bible says so! I have the wisdom on Odin. Why? Because I say so. See, it works.
Plato was available. Euclid's Elements was available. The Iliad was available. 1 and 2 Maccabees were available. The book of Enoch was available. And the list goes on. Would you like to try again?
Firstly, Maccabees and Enoch were considered sacred Jewish writings back then. Secondly, 2 Timothy is not talking about only sacred writing; it's talking about all writing in general.
QuestionL Tangental to this point, I was introduced to A. True Ott (ex-Mormon) by an anti-Mormon. They are protestant; Japanese, from Japan - but born and raised Japanese Protestant. She recommended ruclips.net/video/G5px39vfGZU/видео.html and while my language skills are " limited to English and Bad English"... the argument doesn't sound right, and just 'feels' off. As you are lettered and well-spoken on so many aspects of religion and ancient religions - does his argument hold any water? Is there some good layman's work on some of the numerology aspects? And, also for the same person... is there a clear, undeniable scriptural and/or historical irrefutable proof of the genuine shape of Earth? Or the age?
This is a laughably false I like your channel but come on don’t try this, yes you can argue that the pastoral pistols are forged though I think your argumentation is incredibly weak, it mostly relies on question begging, arguments from silence, and just pour argumentation altogether, testify did a response to your video as well I wonder if you’ve seen it or if you would ever consider doing a response to it. And there are many scholars who defend it’s authenticity, such as D.A Carson, Craig Blomberg, Craig S.Keener, F.F Bruce, and so on. And it is not the academic consensus that is ridiculous, you said in the video I commented on that you don’t even really care to define what academic consensus is or something along those lines, there is a poll taken by Cambridge and most scholars said they were undecided, it is by no means the academic consensus. Also the idea they disagreed Paul is ridiculous in your video you basically just use arguments from silence, it is kind of ridiculous to compare these to his other letters since the other letters were two congregations, these were very short pastoral letters, of course my letter I sent to my church is gonna be different than the letter I sent to let’s say my Pastor or my mom, and how I speak to my mom is going to be very different than how I would message someone in my church, so it would be ridiculous to conclude that my message to my mom is obviously foraged sense it’s completely different than my other letters I would normally send to my church. And even scholars like Paula Fredrickson, James Robinson, and Bart Ehrman I don’t think this is a convincing argument. And even if you reject the pastoral epistles OK there’s plenty of other scripture that suggests that the Bible is inspired. Proverbs 30:5-7 Matthew 4:4 John 17:13-18 1. Corinthians 2:12-14 Acts 1:16 1. Thessalonians 3:13 Ezekiel 1:3 Exodus 24:3-5 And I could go on and on and on and on I could literally Nenu 60+ more verses, about how the Bible is God‘s word, it is infallible word, it is his revelation, it is not the word man but the word of God, in order to hold this position you have to completely reject the entire history of Christian interpretation, which again if you get to buy the consensus card there’s no reason why I can’t either. Also you’re a hypocrite because you tell David Falk that he shouldn’t comment on Matters that have to do the Hebrew Bible since he doesn’t specialize in the Hebrew Bible, your field is more in the Hebrew Bible yet you make so many videos criticizing the New Testament. Yes it’s referring to the Jewish scriptures and the New Testament. This is begging the question you are assuming your conclusion that it wasn’t developed yet so therefore it could not have been referring to it yet you don’t actually give an argument for it, this is a laughably false in anybody who has a kindergarten understanding of the history of Christianity would know this is ridiculous. The Jewish cannon as we know today, this is both misleading and ridiculous. And when I say today I don’t mean it was completely different before then I mean there were a couple of things in dispute that weren’t worked out until later but that hardly affects our modern understanding. No this is ridiculous, yes it is true that there were certain books of the Bible that weren’t accepted by all of the early church, and even some of the protestants during the President reformation, such as Jude, hebrews, Philemon, but as far as I am aware Titus and timothy were not really in dispute they were accepted by the early church as inspired. And this is just a terrible argument by this logic this completely demolishes the idea that El in the Hebrew Bible is referring to Canaanite god El, as the term El has a variety of meaning in the Hebrew Bible and in other places it doesn’t exclusively refer to the god El. And yes cross referencing and seeing how other authors use a specific term is important, but in this context The authors have a completely different view of God altogether a lot of the time and a different worldview altogether so of course they’re gonna use the term differently. I can’t tell but it also seems like you’re referring to the Jewish TeleMed, I think I’m spelling that right. If you want to claim the Bible is in God’s word and has no inherent authority you can make that argument but claiming that the Bible doesn’t even claim it does it’s just stupid.
pleaseenter etc: So, the Bible "proves" that the Bible is true, is that what you are saying? Tell me, please, all those scholars you list, are they all/mostly Christians? If yes, how many of them? And how many of THOSE are bound by agreements with their institutions that ensure they toe the party line? Before you can suggest that the Bible has anything to do with "God", you FIRST have to demonstrate, with good, credible evidence, that this "God" exists. Do you have such evidence? EDIT PS: I did enjoy the idea of the pastoral "pistols"!
@@bigpig5998our thoughts and opinions are definitely interesting. I think claiming that the Bible isn’t God’s word or has no inherent authority isn’t wrong within itself you can make that argument, but claiming the Bible itself doesn’t even claimed that it’s just ridiculous and Dan knows better. Paul and the other biblical writers claimed they had direct and divine revelation from what they perceived as God, they believe that scripture had inherent authority it is ridiculous to suggest otherwise. He seems to be imposing a sort of post modernist reconstructionist methodology, where basically all words, documents, and pretty much all literature has no inherent meeting unless it’s a signed meeting it’s sort of an interaction between text and a person that gives the text meaning. Which is some thing that the biblical authors would’ve been completely against, the early Christians certainly were, he’s essentially trying to renegotiate the biblical authors methodology and the biblical text and impose a idea that would’ve been completely foreign to them.
Men over time decided which prophets or men who claimed to have a message from God were scripture. If there's a God he should have just inscribed his message in super hard, immovable material in several places on all land masses. Jesus should have had a scribe follow him and self-publish his message instead of second, third, and fourth hand accounts of what he said.
actually, the new testament quotes all but five books of the Old Testament and Jesus brought a 24 books of the testament. All of the Old Testament we have today is considered scripture as the New Testament .
You just deny scripture because you want to live your own way, you enjoy your sins. That’s what the only reason why you would choose to reject it. But the next time you get lied to, cheated on, stolen from and done wrong, please never complain because those people (just like you) reject God’s authority as well and don’t want to submit to the good teachings.
Read the sentence but take out the added word the translators put in it, then you will understand what the author meant by saying, ALL scripture inspired by God is for teaching and so forth, to fix that sentence because of the added word " is ", you need to add another word before the word " is " to get the truth, the word to add is " that ", then it will read like this, all scripture "that is" inspired by God is for teaching, now your in their mind, because they certainly didn't agree that all scripture was for teaching, such as sacrifices, circumcision, tithing, among many others, this doesn't negate the scriptures that say, thou shalt not murder, commit adultery or any other scripture teaching unlawful sexual relations and other things, then you got to deal with the people that add to the scriptures making laws that are not scriptural, such as this lie, it's a sin to have sex before you get married, the scriptures will disagree with you, Lev. 15:16-24 is the evidence, this man and woman are not married nor are they children but it was a law that pertained to cleanliness and what to do after having sex, Paul's letter to the Corinthians, deals with this subject and whom can have sex with whom, only people when reading it think he's speaking to the " married " when in fact he's speaking to the " unmarried " and adds the widows into the conversation, the problem comes from the translators not recognizing the same word used for a girlfriend, a betrothed woman, or a woman in general was all translated as " wife ", the verse he uses where he says it's good for a man to not touch a woman is also incorrect, it's a certain kind of man and a certain kind of woman he's referring to, the Greek word for the man is not just a man but one that has authority over others, the Greek word for woman used is not a single woman but a woman with children, to understand this you have to look to the law to see whom it was that another man shouldn't touch, your going to find out she is the wife of another man or simply the woman of another man, the child or children is the evidence that someone owns her or belongs to him, to avoid fornication which means breaking any of the sexual laws forbidden in the scriptures in the law, was to have your OWN woman, not someone else's, could be wife or it could just be woman as we understand it, nevertheless, it's a sign of sexual unfaithfulness, which is a cause for divorce, not just adultery but ANY of the forbidden sexual acts in the law, incest, animal sex, rape, man on man, some others but never a single man and a single woman not living under their fathers care, Paul continues his letter after including the widows with the unmarried and gives this command that he says is not just his but the Lord's, it's to the " married" not to the one's that " marry " he does not tell them any matters concerning sex and rightly so, it's none of his business, also it was unlawful for a man to teach sex to another man's wife or woman, the agreement for having sex which involves the unmarried has to do with whether it would be rape or not, it had to be consensual sex, for a married person that can only have one woman, it's not a thing of being consensual but more so because of responsibility, done out of love and not forced, you want your husband to cheat, just refuse him sex and see how long he last before he cheats, yea, you will get your justified cause for divorce but you will be held responsible for it, just a side note, most women can hold out longer than most men, if you use sex trying to control your husband, that's evil, no more so than if the husband uses his money to try to control her, what they do for each other should be because they love each other and not for trying to control the other making them their slave, get it?
God breathed referring to the source. God chose certain men and guided them. God was in control then and in control today. His word remains with us. 2 peter 1 - For no prophesy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.
2 Peter begins by stating Peter wrote it. Some say the way 1 & 2 Peter are written are to different to have been the same author but in 1 Peter 5:12 it states silvanus (like a secretary) wrote for Peter. So that could explain the difference. In Jude 17 he says remember the words spoken by the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ 18. How there would be mockers in the last days. 2 Peter 3:3 Peter say’s that in the last days there will be scoffers. Peter was an apostle to Jesus. So Jude had to be taking from Peter not Peter taking from Jude
Books "not having an inherent meaning" doesn't follow from the observation that we all have to decode/interpret the texts that we read. The author's intended meaning is the right one. If someone renegotiates a different meaning they just err.
In the word "theopneustos" the stress is on the first "o". Other than that your pronunciation was very good. In "theopneustia" the stress is on the "i".
True, the vast majority of scripture is not inspired by God, but some is, like: love God, by serving others, and love one another, and don't judge. These are inspired words from God.
scripture for nt writer is ot but then ot is corruoted its stil fluid still changed added instepret the bookk still fluid the lxx also have differ book order apochrypha fluidity mistranslation
What is "all Scripture?" Does it include the Catholic books of the Old Testament? Is it self-referential to 2 Timothy itself, in the process of being written? Does it include the later Mormon books, or the Qur'an? Does it include the letters and homilies of the Fathers of the Church? In the narrowest sense it means, as you say, the Hebrew Bible, which was virtually codified by the Council of Jamnia in the year 91, but took centuries to be accepted by all Jews, but that council had no jurisdiction over Christians who were already another religion by then. The New Testament authors uniformly use the Septuagint, which includes the Catholic books, and the author of 2 Timothy probably did so as well. Well, even taking "Scripture" in the narrow sense, the surviving Hebrew and Aramaic books, is all of it useful for teaching? It is useful to read how Moses took the life of one Egyptian to save the lives of several Hebrews. But is it useful to read how he placed swords into the hands of the priests and gave them license to go through the camp killing as many as 3000 Hebrews? Or how he authorized the slaughter of tens of thousands of Amalekite men, women and children? If anyone experiences pious joy at devotionally reading those histories, they have a moral screw loose. We can only find appropriate meanings for the text through spiritual analysis. We cannot read the Bible mindlessly. Either we analyze, or we descend into primitive tribalism. Scripture is useful for teaching, because it makes teaching necessary. Too many readers (and RUclips creators, apparently) are reading without the self-discipline to learn the languages, discern the texts and beg the help of the Holy Spirit.
No inherent authority? I think you're confusing the methods of enforcement of biblical practices and the word of God itself. On whom's authority do you then-so speak? "You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain".
robd etc: I think you are confusing bullsh..t with reality. Seriously, though, do you have any good, credible evidence in support of the existence of any of the "Gods" currently popular?
The academic consensus is wrong about pretty much everything, but it’s especially wrong about the authorship of Saint Paul’s letters to Saint Timothy. Also to say that the verse would be without meaning because the canon of scripture wasn’t established is only a problem if you believe in Sola Scriptura (basically if you’re a Protestant). Catholics and Eastern Orthodox had tradition to know what was scripturally acceptable before the canonization.
1:25 Peter was in prison at the same time as Paul, in Rome. Therefore Peter’s letters were completed before his death and around the time Paul also died. You can’t say 2 Peter was written much later than Paul’s death because it would’ve also been after Peter’s death. You don’t make sense!
Yeah, Joseph smith said the Songs of Solomon are not inspired. This is such a great point of what we're trying to tell people and why God has restored his church with modern prophets and apostles. Y'all should read the bible and let Jesus Christ speak to you and read the book of Mormon to see it is the same spirit.
😂😂😂 Joseph Smith was a demon possessed man a LIAR and a fornicator. He was led by satan. Why would we need the book of Mormon that's not inspired by the Holy Spirit? The only word of God given to us is the word of God- the bible. Christ is the word of God. Mormonism is a CULT of the DEVIL
The Bible’s authority as Scripture springs from the community which hails it as such. It IS inspired Scripture for the believing Christian community. One needn’t go beyond this and pretend like it fell from heaven, fill formed and packaged in convenient codex form. The magesterial Church has long taught this, even as certain protestants today have forgotten it.
This whole thing about the bible not being "univocal" is because people do not understand that the bible is divided into different sections based on the intended target of the writings. This is called dispensationalism which is a well known doctrinal stand among Christians. If you do not understand or accept this truth which is plainly taught in scripture then you will make a mess of the bible and confuse yourself. Also the pastoral epistles do not contradict the other epistles in anyway. The Pauline epistles as a whole are one cohesive segment of the bible which is the doctrinal standard for the current age we live in. What possible proof could you have for claiming that 2 Timothy is not written by Paul other than a bunch of people getting together and simply deciding that for themselves. Academic consensus does not explain the bible's supernatural ability to predict the future or its preservation for thousands of years, or the fact that it is the most printed, disputed, researched, vetted, and rewritten book in all of human history. The term God-breathed or as it is properly translated into English as "given by inspiration" is completely accurate. As scripture is given life by God in a manner like we where given life by God. When you gain life it comes with a spirit or breath that brings reason with it. In the same manner scripture or the word of God is likened to a living thing that can discerns your thoughts and intents and speak with you if you are saved. Hebrews 4:12 KJV 12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. 13 Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do.
The Iliad was preserved for thousands of years. Predicting the future is easy when a) the "prophecy" was actually written after the events occured, or b) there's no set information so you can take an event happening anywhere in the world, at any time in history, as "oh, THIS is what that poetic passage was referring to" Some of the pastoral epistles use a more modern greek than the pauline epistles do, using terminology and grammer that Paul did not use. It's like if you were reading Stephen King and then in the middle it was written by Brandon Sanderson. The style and use of language changes and is noticible. A text being influential does not make it supernatural.
@@huttj509 How about all the prophecies being fulfilled right now that have no other precedent in history like this mass global push to become vegan, stop getting married, or the advent of digital currency and microchips which are necessary for the mark of the beast prophesied in Revelation 13 KJV. Also note the wording in Revelation 13:16 KJV about the mark being 'in' the forehead or hand and not on it, which would have made no sense hundreds of years ago before the invention of microchips. 1 Timothy 4:1-3 KJV 1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; 2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; 3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. Revelation 13:16-17 KJV 16 And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: 17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.
The fact that the bible is divided into different sections based on the target of the writings is one of the reasons why it is not univocal. When the writers of those letters talk about scripture and it being "god breathed" it is only speaking of the Jewish scriptures as the christian. Scriptures did not yet exist. You are being anachronistic in your interpretation of those verses. You are also showing you didn't bother to watch the whole video or blatantly ignored it as he addressed your claims.
Wrong. Dan's wishful thinking is showing. Mark 12:36 KJV For David himself said *by the Holy Ghost,* The Lord said to my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool. 1 Timothy 4:1 KJV Now *the Spirit speaketh expressly,* that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; 1 Corinthians 2:13 KJV Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but *which the Holy Ghost teacheth;* comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
None of those verses has anything to do with the 2 Timothy verse they are referring to. And neither do those verses have anything to do with the christian bible as that did not exist when those verses were written so were not an authority or considered "god breathed". The christian canon wasn't invented till over 300 years later.
@@jaclo3112 Wrong. Dan's claim was about the entire Bible. He claimed the Bible didn't point to any authority. I disproved that by showing that the Bible, in many places, showed that the Holy Spirit (God) is looked at as both authority & composer of the scripture. That's why Jesus said the Holy Spirit was writing through King David. God is Father, Son, and Spirit, and so of course there's direct authority speaking in the Bible.
Genesis is framed on two templates as is its contemporaneous timed story telling culture of Greek Myth. They both derive from Babylonian works, the Enuma Elish. I would read more than one book. Thinking the Bible is literal is sporting a very closed mind. You cannot use a document to prove itself. Else everything written and claimed to be true, is. Think.
@@danielpaulson8838 That's wishful thinking by you. You can look at Jesus' words and see that He looked at Genesis as literal. You can then look at all the evidence & see that it points to Jesus being God incarnate. This again points to the reality that Genesis is a true story, that goes back to the beginning. Any other similar story would be a myth that has borrowed from the real story of Genesis.
@@TruthSpeaks Genesis isn’t the oldest. It’s a downstream variant. I won’t argue what you simply deny. History is available for this. Templates. Do you know what they are?
It isn’t all true. Therefore… How do we know it’s not all true? Plenty of ways, but here’s one obvious example. Jesus parents couldn’t have both: - Fled to Egypt after they were warned in Bethlehem by the Magi that Herod (who was in Jerusalem) was out to kill Jesus - Attended the temple in Jerusalem (where Herod was) when Jesus was eight days old to fulfil religious obligations recorded in the OT, caused a stir there, then gone straight home to Nazareth One or both of those accounts is just not true.
@@boboak9168 ahh see, but we hope the we have if it’s not all true. We’re just hoping that when Paul said putting faith in Jesus is how to be saved is a true part not a false part. There becomes no basis of objective truth if some of the Bible is wrong
@@joshuasmith-libertyunivers4953 Personally I hope that bit isn’t true. I hope if there is a God they are good to all their creation, whether they put faith in Jesus or not. Too many people either never get the chance to, or have good reasons not to believe any of the supernatural stories about Jesus. Regardless, I wish the best for you in this life and whatever may be beyond.
Thank you for being you, Dan. I simply have no more energy to pursue these conversations for any direct benefit to myself, and am grateful beyond words that you are young, able, and committed to this. You just make my days. (And relief that someone is carrying this torch so well.)
I'm not a Christian, but I do find Christianity fascinating. I grew up in the church, hearing a lot of misinformation and a lot of things that seemed to contradict each other. It's refreshing to hear a scholarly voice on the matter. I love Religion for Breakfast, but he doesn't do a very good job of discussing modern interpretations of The Bible contrasted with the original intent. I really appreciate you filling in some gaps.
While he is educated, he is not a "scholar" ...and mis/dis/malinformation comes from all sides. We can tell this as he states, "most scholars" and their claims, there are disagreements to this day as more evidence and study continues. The claims are just that...claims for and against the authenticity of different books.
What does growing up in the church mean? Which church/tradition were you a part of?
@@stevepaige7557 You're being disingenuous in saying Dan is not a scholar of the bible when he clearly states this at the beginning of each video he makes. That would be equivalent to you being a doctor spending years of study and practice and giving a professional medical opinion based on facts and data, consequently, some Joe blow off the street with no credentials at all says you're educated but you're no doctor by any stretch of the imagination and your opinion is merely stems from disinformation and misinformation.
@@stevepaige7557Why is he not a scholar?
Listened to the podcast today on a long bike ride. You mentioned people saying they have found healing in your message. I have also found freedom. Freedom from fear, freedom from denial, freedom from theological contortionism trying to make univocality and inerrancy work.
The bible is only univocal in the sense that the church collected and edited these books into a single volume. It is the church's work from start to finish, and should always be read with that in mind.
I'm sending this to grandma wish me luck!
Lol grandma gonna whoop your ass 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🔥
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
I love you Dan! Well, I love your videos. Especially these short ones that deal with one specific question each. Really well thought-out, to the point, clear and strong. Keep 'em coming!
This is something that I've asked myself many times when I was a believer. What is this author referring to when he says all scripture if it wasn't compiled yet? Now I know. Thank you so much!
same thing paul meant when he referred to scripture.
@@scambammer6102 At the time of Jesus and Paul, the Torah [the Five books of Moses], the Prophets, and the Psalms were accepted as canon by Jews. In one of the gospels, there is even a reference to the same but not by listed names. However, the exact form of the Jewish canon was not finalized until much later as Dan mentions. The first five books and the Psalms we now have were there, Isiaih and most of the major prophets we have now were there but there were other books added or rejected depending on which Jewish faction you were looking at. You see this in the Dead Sea Scrolls, the texts found in other caves not exactly at the Dead Sea but often tossed in with them, and some other books that did not make it into the Jewish Canon but did make it into the Catholic Bible or Protestant Bible or ultimately were left out of all three bibles. Likewise, when one looks at the Dead Sea Scroll collections, scholars have determined that of the various Isaiah scrolls [or fragments of scrolls] there are differences between the different versions. If I am remembering correctly, the Great Isaiah Scroll is very close to the modern version but not exact. So, when it comes to the scriptures Paul and the gospel authors are referring to, we have a general idea of what Jewish scriptures they are referring to but not exact except for the bits they refer to in the gospels.
Likewise, when early Christians refer to the Jewish scriptures, they are going off the Septuagint, not the Hebrew. The problem there is that we know that one of the Ptolomeys had Jewish scholars translate the first five books long before Jesus was born for the Alexandria Library. There are references to later scrolls of Jewish prophets and the Psalms being translated into Greek and these are also referred to as part of the Septuagint. But what was translated, when it was done, who did it, and whether the copies in existence now are accurate reflections of the originals of those works cannot be established.
Jews, Then Christians all know what scripture is. At the point of writing this verse the OT was in reference.
Scripture is determined by the church that collected, edited, and canonized these texts. It's also the church that tells us what Paul (or Paul's scribe) is referring to in 2nd Timothy 3:16. The Bible was never meant to be a free for all.
@@micah3209 LOL, no
thanks, Dan. It was such a shock to me when I found out decades ago that, nope, Moses didn't write the first chapters of the Bible. Ever since then, I've been fascinated hearing what others have learned, such as yourself. It's amazing that most people know so little about one of the most important things in our lives. This video was wonderfully concise.
And you believe this because some modern, liberal minded “theologian” told you that? Just curious.
@@twopreachersinapew its called common sense. Anyone with half a brain can figure it out.
That must have 🥑 been surprising.
@@twopreachersinapew I call them educated FOOLS
@@sohu86x with your common sense show us how they discoverd Moses didn't write the scriptures? What evidence is there? Use your 1/2 brain ...
It is so important and welcoming to HEAR facts to form an informative message.
Oddly enough (and why I find the 'God breated' bit such a distraction), is that if we edit it slightly, to get
All Scripture is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
Then that is a sensible and less problematic statement. By removing the temptation to resort to inerrency and literalism, and so that one must think through every statement, and ask why it is true, and in what sense it is true, even if it is true at all.
I like all this but I disagree about the Jewish canon. You said it wasn't established till the 4th/5th/6th centuries, which i think is a reference to the Talmudic canon list in Baba Bathra 14b (which counts 24 works). Isn't there decent evidence from Josephus and various Christian authors like Origen that Hellenistic Jews were using a 22 book canon that had very similar contents but in a different order (going back to the 1st century)? There is a saying in the Gospel of Thomas "24 prophets spoke in Israel" and I have wondered if that's an early reference to the 24 book version as well.
I grew up in a Baptist children's home and they sent me to a Baptist college, Belmont and Nashville. As a 17-year-old freshman I was required to take Old testament history where I learned about all the books that were taken out of the Bible and so forth and how they don't even know who wrote most of it. I had a great teacher
THANK YOU! I’m going to download this to show to people who keep quoting 2nd Timothy to me. I’m tired of repeating myself!
This guy literally just said nothing.
@@twopreachersinapew Oh look, a dishonest Non-Response, from a Biased Christian Pastor/Preacher.
Color me utterly and entirely Unsurprised, I guess. What you said was *Far Closer* to Literal 'nothing' than Dan's statements ever were.
But then again, you're not in the Business of 'literal', huh? Just in the Business of Metaphor, Allegory, and other forms of EXCUSE-Making Eisegesis.
@@TechySeven lol sureeee. Who is the people that make up this “Academic consensus?” 😆 just a bunch of utter nonsense made up by atheist
@@twopreachersinapew If you truly believe such a blatantly bullshit statement of Self-Confirming Slander as that, then you're Even More 'Lost' than Christians think most Nonbelievers to be.
@@TechySeven how is it slander?
I am writing a book inspired by you. Thank you for touching on the intent of the authors and compilers of the Bible. That is the most crucial element.
It really doesn't even say "Scripture," it just says "graphas" which means "writings." The idea of canonical "scripture" didn't even exist yet, but people in antiquity still had a reverence for writing in general and thought it had a certain power. That phrase is praising a medium, not a specific body of work. It's like someone saying "All movies are great." This is "All books are great."
Yes! Someone actually gets it. And earlier in 2 Timothy the author even refers to people who only make use of a limited corpus of writings as children, LOL.
@@waynemv You are a child in God's eyes.
You are a spiritual child as you don't understand Spiritual things.
Even now it's obvious you don't.
Spiritual things are not bound by age.
Try stop being a victim.
God Bless you and your family
Moreover, it's far more superstitious of a judgement than Just 'great'/'good'. After all, the whole 'god-breathed' thing was all about 'Spiritual' Animism (effectively), to say that ALL Life and All WORDS & LANGUAGES were just this kind of Magical, Mystical, THING that was powered by the Magically-invisible Wind/Air/'Spirit'.
The bible was collected and edited to be a single volume with univocal meaning, this was one of the duties of the church. Since the church is responsible for the bible, it too is the only means we have of understanding it.
I love your videos... Thanks a Lot for your work. 🎉
The question I think of is that, when Paul wrote "All Scripture is God-breathed", did he consider the letter he was writing to be scripture?
(And you can factor in the assumption that Paul wrote it, or replace 'Paul' by 'the author of the epistle' as necessary, the nature of the question remains.)
This. If Paul were alive today and saw his epistles included in a library of sacred scripture, he might not even agree himself.
Thank you, Dan, again for pointing out the facts.
This is the topic that started my schism. That story is long. But basically the term “Divine Intervention” is a catch all to explain everything. God intervened and guided the disciples hand, thus the literal word. God intervened with regards to Noah, and the platypus, and physically placed it on Australia. This argument was with my sister, who is a minister. We were taught in Sunday school that the biblical stories were to be used as reflections, not literal. But she changed her views. This was about 30 years ago. I didn’t realize what changed. But it was the beginning of Christian nationalism. The whole foundation shifted and I no longer fit. The church left me.
If 2 Tim 3:16 refers to "scripture" but it's not referring to the OT or NT as we know it, then what scripture is it referring to?
And, even though the full Jewish canon wasn't established yet, at least the Torah was well established by the time 2 Tim 3:16 was written, no?
My question is:
If Christian s and Muslims believe God gave Torah to Moses on Sinai.
Then they believe God made a mistake and changed mind about eternal covenant made on Sinai and instead sends a man god idol Trinity pagan human sacrifice for sin to replace Torah laws with a Greek new testament?
Quran then later then book of Mormon added..
The New Testament writings explain why the covenant at Sinai had to be replaced by the new covenant dedicated by Jesus. And Jesus was, according to the Bible, not a God as the Trinity teaching portrays him. He was man, born miraculously, but still a man who shared our human nature and temptations. The difference was that he did not sin, and that made him a perfect sacrifice for the sins of mankind. He wasn't a human sacrifice in the pagan sense. But, he willingly allowed himself to be killed. And because he was sinless, he was like the unblemished animal offered in sacrifice under the Law of Moses. That Law could never completely remove sin, because sin offering needed continually to be offered, and atonement each year. But God provided Jesus as the one time offering for all men.
@@eddieyoung2104 I don't believe God made a mistake changed mind about eternal covenant made on Sinai..
Or it's not a "God" but a liar.
People of Ninveh forgiven no sacrifice needed for sin s.
@@Nudnik1 I don't believe God made a mistake either. I don't think God makes a mistake just because he decides to make a new covenant. After all he does say in Jeremiah that he intended to do so. Otherwise we could say that God made a mistake when he gave the covenant at Sinai, because it should have remained like it was with Abraham.
And if you don't think sacrifice is needed for sin, then are you not yourself changing what God commanded at Sinai? In other words, you don't allow for God to change anything, but it's acceptable for you to do so.
@@eddieyoung2104 That would be a cruel fake God ...
Who made everyone follow eternal laws then 1500 years later sends a idol Trinity pagan human sacrifice Calvary to replace Torah laws with a Greek new testament..
No thanks .
I'm LDS, loooovvvee learning about the Bible, and I'm so glad he teaches what scripture, all scripture, is. Love it.
Me too. Just remember that everything is negotiated and renegotiated even within the restoration. You need to find the authority within you and from ethical science and appropriate revelation to discover and nurture what's right and true for you and your family. This may or may not be at odds with fellow congregants or upper leaders. Keep on your journey!
I keep waiting for him to turn his high-power lense on LDS scriptures. He hasn’t so far.
@Dorothy Say I think he has to be somewhat careful. Bottom line, most LDS people won't learn or listen about any of it unless he is active LDS. Heck, I moved to a tiny town 5 years ago near Ephraim, and a lady actually said in church that the Bible said women were not supposed to speak, so even though we may not like the idea, it's what we're supposed to do. I'm glad he's starting with something that most dont find all the way true anyway. Hopefully, once that barrier is broken, people will be able to learn more about the BOM. Hopefully!
@@dorothysay8327 are you watching Aron Ray’s Joseph’s Myth? Very eye opening.
@@dorothysay8327 He's brought it up before. It should be noted that the context around both are very different and his wheel house in terms of research/academia isn't LDS scripture. Which may be part of the reason it's not focused on as much. It's also not a more universally interesting topic with nearly as much academic focus and scholarship outside of lds circles. It would be interesting, but I recognize that part of that interest is largely because I'm LDS too. He does have a couple papers that are more lds specific on his website and a few videos you can find sprinkled throughout.
You are doing fantastic work! Keep it up
I would be really interested in hearing you expound upon your beliefs about Mormonism :)
It might be hard for Dan, give him time. Or it might be far too easy. Joseph Smith wrote all that stuff and we have good evidence to back that up. It isn’t nearly as interesting a puzzle.
@@philsphan4414 the fact that LDS doctrine changed and changes incredibly fast, especially when new leadership takes over, shows that prophets, apostles, and restoration scripture is not univocal and messy. LDS history is absolutely fascinating
@@SynThenergy Yes, but it’s history. It’s in English. We know who did what for the most part. Dan’s specialty is more of a puzzle and might be more fun for him given his background.
I’d love to hear Dan’s personal views more than any academic take: how he navigates within his community when his values don’t square with church values, where he hopes it will move in the future, the role he hopes it may play in our country- basically all the elephant in the room questions that he has chosen not to dive into. Or maybe I’m wrong and he doesn’t find any of that conflict difficult. Idk, would love to hear.
@@philsphan4414I'm writing this 8 months after your remarks, and as of my reply to you he has done a three-parter on Mormon Stories, so check it out if you haven't already.
This is further compounded by the fact there is no one doctrine of inspiration or the scriptures within Christian communities. Compare Sola Scriptura to the Orthodox doctrine of the scriptures. Even within the Protestant community there has been large disagreements. The debates over biblical inerrancy easily show a wide range of beliefs on this topic. There is wide disagreement if you look at Christian history and today over the Bible within Christianity.
With an omnipotent omniscient deity isn't everything inspired by God? Or will predestination vs. freewill be later?
No, it most certainly is not.
Gonna show this to the next person that asked about my “epistemology.” Sorry, what was yours?
You keep citing to 'scholars'. How do you know they're right / have any authority?
He appeal to their authority. Jsut as people appeal to science as their authority.
I feel like the argument on its face is circular too.
People don't know the difference between "inspired by " and "written by" and in addition, very few actually take the time to go deep in study, if they did they would soon find out just how wrong many of their teachers had been about a lot of things now taken for granted to be true. When you try to apply scripture incorrectly you don't get the result God intended for you, and the level of biblical ignorance is inevitable if everyone thinks it's so easy! I have actually spoken with some of these people, uninterested in truth they much prefer their tradition.
How does one correctly apply the scripture in your opinion to get the result God intended?
@@SicMundus7 In other words "God iNTENDED That You Interpret it ONLY in the Way that * *I* * Like and Am Comfortable With, a way which Allows *Me* to Continue Maintaining My Belief Without Personal Scrutiny, Question, and Awkward Difficulty or Discomfort".
Many years ago a professor in my Christian college told my class “I think Paul knew he was writing scripture.”
What does inherent authority mean.?
@gekksvide0 thank you so much :)
The Bible isn’t written for belief. It’s written to believers. It’s authority to those who believe. It’s not for unbelievers…
The Bible was written for the gullible, naive, and impressionable.
@hellosaints i am curious on this video too what your opinion is?
There are all kinds of critical nonsense about different authors and such. “Scholars” are just as lost as everyone else.. just like the “scholars” that said that Daniel wasn’t written when it was believed to be written because the prophesy was too accurate… than the Dead Sea scrolls came out and shut that up. Now they just don’t believe. Same as this jargon. Non belief is nothing new. God resists the proud and exalts the humble. The fact that people study the Bible and don’t see the Godly magnificence of it shows the hardness of peoples hearts and how most just choose not to believe. There are “scholars” that would shred this statement but it doesn’t matter. It’s up to you to believe and search for God.
The Aramaic text says: "Every SCRIPTURE (book, writing) which was written by THE SPIRIT (inspiration) is PROFITABLE (beneficial, advantageous, useful) for teaching & for correction & for uprightness & for the discipline which is in justice" (2 Tim. 3:16 P'shitta). Paulus narrates from NT Books & calls them Scripture (1 Cor. 15:3-8). So it would be wrong to conclude that Paulus only had an Old Testament Book in mind when he mentions Scripture.
Paulus often tells us he wrote his Book / Letter at the beginning, in statements such as: "[From] Paulus, a messenger (missionary) of Yeshua the Anointed One by the will of God & by the promise of the [everlasting] life which is IN (by) Yeshua the Anointed One." (2 Tim. 1:1; CF ALSO: Col. 1:1; etc.). There is no reason to believe that Paulus didn't write the 13 Catholic EPISTLES (Letters). The scholarly consensus among Christians & the Church is that Paulus did write all those letters. The [uninspired or unauthentic] ones he didn't write were left out of the NT. The Doctrine of Addai ALSO lets us know that the Thirteen Letters of Paulus, which included Hebrews, are Scripture (Addai 1:79 / 46:8-16). The writer of the "Letter to the Hebrews" writes in the first person; as if the readers knew who this writer was. The Church has identified this writer as Paulus. Details about the writer being in Italy and who also knew about Timotheos being released from prison also indicate that Paulus is the author (Heb. 13:18-19, 22-24). Finally, Petros (Peter), as you mentioned, acknowledges EPISTLES (Letters) written by Paulus (2 Pet. 3:15-16).
The Greek word THEOPNEUSTOS [θεόπνευστος] literally means: "God-breathed" hence: "INSPIRED BY GOD (Divine Inspiration)." The meaning of Greek words are often determined by their usage meaning(s) versus what words make up the composite word [verb].
Why do we consider the bible scripture?
So the whole the Bible has no inherent meeting or authority argument seems to be based on a post modernist/reconstruction theory/methodology sort of a word interaction thing where it literature has no inherent meeting unless it has been assigned meaning.
It would be ironic if the writer of that verse meant scripture is a “living collection”, therefore my humble letter and later additions should be added to yours.
You're not very fun at Christmas parties, I'd bet.
Just kidding, you'd be welcome at ours anytime. You do superb work. I still can't get over the retro t-shirts you often wear.
Like where does he get the X-men Shirts??!!
So are we not suppose to have an understanding of the Old Testament as a basis for understanding the New? And wouldn't any authority start with the Old? Either the Jews are God's chosen people who he chose to reveal his word, power, and authority through or not? Help me see what I'm missing here. I'm a busy guy and really don't have much time to dig into these things. Thanks Dan.
That is why we are to not lean on our own understanding as the maker of this video does. Just read the Bible. What does it say? Do that and believe that.
A little background on myself, I wasn't always a Christian and actually used to parrot all kinds of nonsense about the Bible that I heard from people like the maker of this video. What happened? God corrected, and it hurt, a lot, and I thank him every day for doing so. God bless.
As a Seventh Day Adventist, I totally agree that you must understand the OT before you can understand the NT. That’s why we spend a huge amount of time studying both. Many topics are discussed in the NT that assume the reader understands the OT without mentioning particulars. Paul does this a lot. One example is when He says “one person honors one day while another person honors another.” Most people assume he’s referring to the sabbath, but no mention of the sabbath or law is mentioned by him here. But eating is mentioned. So since no sabbath, but food, or lack of, pertains to fasting, so if one is assuming, then fasting is more reasonable here. Some fasted certain days, while others fasted on different days.
'Scripture' just means the writings we decided to grant special status. It kind of seems like this is a question of whether it should be interpreted to be self-referential or not as well. Even without knowing that Paul did not write it it still wouldn't be obvious that it was talking about itself. "Everything I write is inspired by God" seems pretty bold.
God-breathed is actually a much stronger word than inspired making this passage a stronger claim to biblical authority.
If you read it in context, the passage is about religious text that Timothy read when he was young that testify about Jesus. Either they both had an understanding that the OT was about Jesus (typology, Angel of the Lord, messianic prophecy) or they were taking about NT writings which exegete the OT passages that are thought to point to Jesus.
Either way, there is an authoritative claim about writings about Jesus believed to be from God.
Authoritative claims are found in many places in the Bible. Joshua claims the law should not depart from your mouth. Revelation promises calamity to those who add or takeaway from scripture. Jesus claims to be the only true revelation of the Father and quotes scripture as if it were authoritative.
To prove your point, you would have to prove Jesus is not trustworthy and did not rise from the dead.
geno etc: "God-breathed is actually a much stronger word that inspired ... etc" - Are you being serious? Do you REALLY mean that if the language used is "stronger" (in your estimation) that makes the claims of the text more authoritative? I have heard some desperate arguments in my time, but this is at a new level of desperation.
@@Nai61a When I see “God breathed,” I am assuming it means that God spoke it into existence. What do you think “God breathed” means?
@@genotriana3882 I think it is all poetic, metaphorical language to bolster belief in a celestial magician/judge. It is all made up. Wonderful stories, but stories just the same.
@@Nai61a I appreciate your opinion. That was what I used to believe for a long time.
Have you looked into how the stories of the resurrection became so popular in the first century? Some of Jesus’ disciples made incredible sacrifices to spread that story of why His body was missing from the tomb. It’s hard to imagine that someone would give up everything and die for a story that they knew was not true.
@@genotriana3882 I understand that the resurrection stories became popular as time passed, rather as the stories of Muhammad or those of Joseph Smith became popular.
As to the sacrifices, have you looked into the stories of these disciples and their sacrifices? I saw an interesting video about this, but I am not sure where. It might have been Paulogia. If you are not familiar with his channel, it is definitely worth exploring. But the point is, people will make sacrifices for what they BELIEVE to be true. This does not mean that their beliefs are well-founded, however.
Dan slinging facts like a gangster! 😎
Dan is using wishful thinking. He's not using facts.
Mark 12:36 KJV
For David himself said *by the Holy Ghost,* The Lord said to my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool.
Acts 1:16 KJV
Men and brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, *which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake* before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus.
@gekksvide0 I already did prove my point. When Jesus said David spoke "by the Holy Ghost" what do you think that means? It obviously means David's words are divinely inspired. They're God's words. Humans are the pen in God's hand. That's how prophecy can come to pass as written.
Hebrews 10:7 KJV
Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.
Truth ✅
@@TruthSpeaks- a perfect example of exactly what Dan is speaking of in the video. The author of Mark ripped a fragment of Psalm 110 completely out of context and reinterpreted it to refer to the Moshiach, implying the text applies to Jesus. Then, later Christians trotted in and reinterpreted the text even further to apply to a divine Jesus who is part of a Trinity that was not even formulated until roughly 300 years after Jesus died. Any 1st Century Jew familiar with the Hebrew text of Psalm 110 would have found the words Mark places in the mouth of Jesus in that passage absurd on their face. But a 21st-century Christian who does not know Hebrew and reads them in English will read into them their reinterpreted meaning developed long after Jesus was dead and buried. And that is why "TruthSpeaks" is using wishful thinking and ignoring facts.
@@johnpetry5321 Are you hearing yourself? Mark didn't place words in Jesus' mouth. He's writing down what Jesus had said, not making Him say something. Jesus there points to the scripture being inspired by the Holy Ghost. It's not the only place either (Acts 1:16 & Acts 28:25). In terms of the Trinity, that's pointed out in many places. Starting at Genesis 1:26 and going forward.
A book can claim it has authority, but that doesn't make it so
The point of the video is that that claim isn’t made 🤣
I've got several questions. First, why do people think that the pastoral epistles were written well after Paul died and written by someone pretending to be Paul? Why weren't they discredited early on, if they were in fact not written by Paul? What were considered as Scriptures when 2 Timothy says they were "God-breathed"? That seems important to this discussion. Also, if God is the giver of life, why wouldn't Scriptures then be inspired by God, if they are life giving? Finally, just saying there is no univocality doesn't prove there is no univocality. So... perhaps show how the pastoral epistles disagree with the rest of Paul, hm?
@@gekksvide0 well... You answered one question, but it brings up another. If someone were writing, pretending to be Paul, why wouldn't they try to make it match more with Paul's writing style? Wouldn't that make more sense than trying to pass off a different writing style as Paul's?
But the Book of Mormon is inspired right?
Inspired? Depends on your view of scripture, even if scripture is historical or not. Historical? Look at both sides and see where the evidence lies.
It's not. Is racist, and believe Joseph Smith found gold plates.... And have gods like babies in different galaxy.... Sound Sci fiction to me
I think the Bible ✝ is univocal in the same way ChatGPT is univocal or dungeons in a dungeon crawler are univocal.
It is heavily *randomly generated,* but whenever *the programmer* cares about something, it sticks *rigidly* to it. It also breaks convention on special tiles. Such as maintaining humans being kosher but *only if you think about it* even to the extent of picking a water eating restriction that avoids counting humans as an aquatic animal you cannot eat.
A view having an 'academic consensus' or having most scholars believe it, doesn't mean it is true. It assumes that the majority must be correct, and the Bible shows many times that the right way is in the minority. Also outside of the Bible, in history many times the majority turn out to be wrong. Majority must be right, is a basic human way of thinking, because it's just easier to assume that more people thinking or doing something must mean it's right. Most people prefer to go with the tide, and that only teaches us to give more investigation to something before it is accepted.
Paul was writing letters to different congregations at different times, dealing with different issues. So, he's not always going to be saying the same things, and naturally concentrates on the issues affecting the different audiences. Also If his writing style varies from letter to letter, which I believe is one objection, then that is only natural for someone over time.
I agree. I am no writer but could easily have multiple writing styles based on the emotions I was experiencing at the time. Not to mention, Paul was growing and active in God every single day. I don’t think we have a legitimate reason to discount them as Paul’s simply because they have different styles. But I haven’t looked into the subject myself.
Like you alluded to, the general consensus at the university level is wrong on a LOT of topics.
What do you mean the right way is in the minority?
And which biblical scholars can one really trust
@@KevindusT360 David Bently Hart and Dan Mohler if I was forced to name drop 2
@@KevindusT360 When I said 'the Bible shows many times that the right way is in the minority', I was referring to events in the Bible where the majority was in error, and the minority were in the right. For example, in the great flood, only eight were saved. In the wilderness journey, Caleb and Joshua were the only ones of their generation allowed to enter the land. When Israel sunk into idolatry, the faithful were very few. And in Jesus' day, only a minority of people believed in him. We can also add Jesus' words about the broad way leading to destruction, and only few finding the narrow way leading to life.
And in answer to the second question, I would say John the apostle gives the best advice. '...believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God...' (1 John 4:1-3). Spirit here referring to the mind and words of men, which are to be assessed according to the rule John gives in the passage.
Dan, the data you present has changed the way I view the bible. I am a pentecostal christian and that won't change any time soon, but I have changed my way of thinking. I no longer say "this is the word of God" when holding the bible, but I say there are instances when reading it where we do come across the word(s) of God.
I think the writer of the comment was speaking from his point of view.
Because if God exists, then the whole Bible has to be true or he believes in the wrong religion.
That is a weak answer when dealing with an atheist
It's also a weak answer when referring to that verse in 2 Timothy as the verse has zero reference to the comenter's gospels and the rest of the NT or even the christian canon of the OT.
@@jaclo3112 No. The verse is part of the whole Bible which should be 100% correct if it’s the word of God.
What is in the Bible is what God intended. You can’t say part of it is wrong.
@@augustinjulius2978 You gave your opinion but you didn't refute anything.
@@sonnydanielj7508 Dan is only making baseless claims.
@@augustinjulius2978 so either the bible is the words of men pretending to be gods, or the christian gods are monumentally stupid, inconsistent and morally depraved.
Let’s assume for a second that this was written by Paul the apostle, this is traditional teaching. He very obviously was NOT referring to his own letters, and we really don’t know exactly which writings the author was talking about. This actually renders the verse irrelevent to today, there is no sufficient context anymore to give it meaning.
People who respond to you negatively citing these verses often do so with an absolutely ahistorical view of the Bible. It grates on one’s patience that someone could remain religious yet ignore the history of the true development of their favored text and the religious movements surrounding it.
Any references?
1 Corinthians 1:18
King James Version
18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
This guy a athiest right???
I'm intrigued. Do you have sources of your main claim that 1st and 2nd Timothy was written after Paul's death? In addition, I think you have the assumption Paul taught against the Torah which he never did. This is a misunderstanding of correct doctrine passed down from the Catholic church to discredit the Jews.
I do agree with your assumption that it is referring to the Septuagint for the most part. All the Torah, Prophets, Poetic books, and the Apocrypha are included.
This passage addresses the misunderstanding of Paul's intent to explain Grace while also saying that his letters can be viewed as scripture.
Therefore, beloved, looking forward to these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, without spot and blameless; and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation-as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.
II Peter 3:14-16 NKJV
I do thank you for your demeanor and way you research. Keep researching as the noble minded Bereans my friend.
Of course the Bible is what TV preachers say it is. We know that because the Bible says so! I have the wisdom on Odin. Why? Because I say so. See, it works.
Thanks again, Dan.
If that is not what was meant by scripture, what WAS meant by it? What was the author's intention here?
I read The Brother's Grimm. Now on Hans Christian Anderson. I may then get to the bible. Yes, from the sublime to the ridiculous.
2.Peter is from the 1. century. That is the scholarly consensus. Dr Robert E. Picirilli has a nice article about its dating....
Lol, no, that's not the scholarly consensus.
And there I was thinking Joephus mentioned the Jewish scriptures.
The OT scripture was the only scripture available and that’s what’s being referred to.
1:44
@@theethanatorem the Hebrew Bible was around. It’s what Jesus and the apostles knew.
Plato was available. Euclid's Elements was available. The Iliad was available. 1 and 2 Maccabees were available. The book of Enoch was available. And the list goes on. Would you like to try again?
@@waynemv none of that is scripture. I’m talking about the Hebrew Bible.
Firstly, Maccabees and Enoch were considered sacred Jewish writings back then. Secondly, 2 Timothy is not talking about only sacred writing; it's talking about all writing in general.
All scripture is written by men .
Inspired by God. U left that part out... Nobody can rewrite the Bible even if u try... It stood the test of time...
Science book u read is written by who??? Lol shows ur stupidity
Shows ur ignorance
Your vids strengthen my faith big time
patjack etc: "Your vids strengthen my faith ... etc" - Your "faith" in what, exactly? And what do you mean by "faith"?
Huh
QuestionL Tangental to this point, I was introduced to A. True Ott (ex-Mormon) by an anti-Mormon. They are protestant; Japanese, from Japan - but born and raised Japanese Protestant. She recommended ruclips.net/video/G5px39vfGZU/видео.html and while my language skills are " limited to English and Bad English"... the argument doesn't sound right, and just 'feels' off. As you are lettered and well-spoken on so many aspects of religion and ancient religions - does his argument hold any water? Is there some good layman's work on some of the numerology aspects? And, also for the same person... is there a clear, undeniable scriptural and/or historical irrefutable proof of the genuine shape of Earth? Or the age?
This is a laughably false I like your channel but come on don’t try this, yes you can argue that the pastoral pistols are forged though I think your argumentation is incredibly weak, it mostly relies on question begging, arguments from silence, and just pour argumentation altogether, testify did a response to your video as well I wonder if you’ve seen it or if you would ever consider doing a response to it. And there are many scholars who defend it’s authenticity, such as D.A Carson, Craig Blomberg, Craig S.Keener, F.F Bruce, and so on. And it is not the academic consensus that is ridiculous, you said in the video I commented on that you don’t even really care to define what academic consensus is or something along those lines, there is a poll taken by Cambridge and most scholars said they were undecided, it is by no means the academic consensus. Also the idea they disagreed Paul is ridiculous in your video you basically just use arguments from silence, it is kind of ridiculous to compare these to his other letters since the other letters were two congregations, these were very short pastoral letters, of course my letter I sent to my church is gonna be different than the letter I sent to let’s say my Pastor or my mom, and how I speak to my mom is going to be very different than how I would message someone in my church, so it would be ridiculous to conclude that my message to my mom is obviously foraged sense it’s completely different than my other letters I would normally send to my church. And even scholars like Paula Fredrickson, James Robinson, and Bart Ehrman I don’t think this is a convincing argument.
And even if you reject the pastoral epistles OK there’s plenty of other scripture that suggests that the Bible is inspired.
Proverbs 30:5-7
Matthew 4:4
John 17:13-18
1. Corinthians 2:12-14
Acts 1:16
1. Thessalonians 3:13
Ezekiel 1:3
Exodus 24:3-5
And I could go on and on and on and on I could literally Nenu 60+ more verses, about how the Bible is God‘s word, it is infallible word, it is his revelation, it is not the word man but the word of God, in order to hold this position you have to completely reject the entire history of Christian interpretation, which again if you get to buy the consensus card there’s no reason why I can’t either. Also you’re a hypocrite because you tell David Falk that he shouldn’t comment on Matters that have to do the Hebrew Bible since he doesn’t specialize in the Hebrew Bible, your field is more in the Hebrew Bible yet you make so many videos criticizing the New Testament. Yes it’s referring to the Jewish scriptures and the New Testament. This is begging the question you are assuming your conclusion that it wasn’t developed yet so therefore it could not have been referring to it yet you don’t actually give an argument for it, this is a laughably false in anybody who has a kindergarten understanding of the history of Christianity would know this is ridiculous. The Jewish cannon as we know today, this is both misleading and ridiculous. And when I say today I don’t mean it was completely different before then I mean there were a couple of things in dispute that weren’t worked out until later but that hardly affects our modern understanding.
No this is ridiculous, yes it is true that there were certain books of the Bible that weren’t accepted by all of the early church, and even some of the protestants during the President reformation, such as Jude, hebrews, Philemon, but as far as I am aware Titus and timothy were not really in dispute they were accepted by the early church as inspired. And this is just a terrible argument by this logic this completely demolishes the idea that El in the Hebrew Bible is referring to Canaanite god El, as the term El has a variety of meaning in the Hebrew Bible and in other places it doesn’t exclusively refer to the god El. And yes cross referencing and seeing how other authors use a specific term is important, but in this context The authors have a completely different view of God altogether a lot of the time and a different worldview altogether so of course they’re gonna use the term differently. I can’t tell but it also seems like you’re referring to the Jewish TeleMed, I think I’m spelling that right. If you want to claim the Bible is in God’s word and has no inherent authority you can make that argument but claiming that the Bible doesn’t even claim it does it’s just stupid.
We love your opinions. But you didn't really disprove anything.
@@sonnydanielj7508 sure he did , reread his comment again
pleaseenter etc: So, the Bible "proves" that the Bible is true, is that what you are saying?
Tell me, please, all those scholars you list, are they all/mostly Christians? If yes, how many of them? And how many of THOSE are bound by agreements with their institutions that ensure they toe the party line?
Before you can suggest that the Bible has anything to do with "God", you FIRST have to demonstrate, with good, credible evidence, that this "God" exists. Do you have such evidence?
EDIT PS: I did enjoy the idea of the pastoral "pistols"!
@@bigpig5998our thoughts and opinions are definitely interesting.
I think claiming that the Bible isn’t God’s word or has no inherent authority isn’t wrong within itself you can make that argument, but claiming the Bible itself doesn’t even claimed that it’s just ridiculous and Dan knows better. Paul and the other biblical writers claimed they had direct and divine revelation from what they perceived as God, they believe that scripture had inherent authority it is ridiculous to suggest otherwise. He seems to be imposing a sort of post modernist reconstructionist methodology, where basically all words, documents, and pretty much all literature has no inherent meeting unless it’s a signed meeting it’s sort of an interaction between text and a person that gives the text meaning. Which is some thing that the biblical authors would’ve been completely against, the early Christians certainly were, he’s essentially trying to renegotiate the biblical authors methodology and the biblical text and impose a idea that would’ve been completely foreign to them.
Men over time decided which prophets or men who claimed to have a message from God were scripture. If there's a God he should have just inscribed his message in super hard, immovable material in several places on all land masses. Jesus should have had a scribe follow him and self-publish his message instead of second, third, and fourth hand accounts of what he said.
actually, the new testament quotes all but five books of the Old Testament and Jesus brought a 24 books of the testament.
All of the Old Testament we have today is considered scripture as the New Testament .
Dan they don’t know what univocal means!!!
I think anyone with half a brain can work that out, no? Oh, sorry, I forgot that evangelical fundamentalists don't have even half a brain.
Its not inspired by God but the inspiration from other writings and man
You just deny scripture because you want to live your own way, you enjoy your sins. That’s what the only reason why you would choose to reject it. But the next time you get lied to, cheated on, stolen from and done wrong, please never complain because those people (just like you) reject God’s authority as well and don’t want to submit to the good teachings.
Interesting that the NIV even says "scripture is God-breathed" www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Timothy%203%3A16&version=NIV
Read the sentence but take out the added word the translators put in it, then you will understand what the author meant by saying, ALL scripture inspired by God is for teaching and so forth, to fix that sentence because of the added word " is ", you need to add another word before the word " is " to get the truth, the word to add is " that ", then it will read like this, all scripture "that is" inspired by God is for teaching, now your in their mind, because they certainly didn't agree that all scripture was for teaching, such as sacrifices, circumcision, tithing, among many others, this doesn't negate the scriptures that say, thou shalt not murder, commit adultery or any other scripture teaching unlawful sexual relations and other things, then you got to deal with the people that add to the scriptures making laws that are not scriptural, such as this lie, it's a sin to have sex before you get married, the scriptures will disagree with you, Lev. 15:16-24 is the evidence, this man and woman are not married nor are they children but it was a law that pertained to cleanliness and what to do after having sex, Paul's letter to the Corinthians, deals with this subject and whom can have sex with whom, only people when reading it think he's speaking to the " married " when in fact he's speaking to the " unmarried " and adds the widows into the conversation, the problem comes from the translators not recognizing the same word used for a girlfriend, a betrothed woman, or a woman in general was all translated as " wife ", the verse he uses where he says it's good for a man to not touch a woman is also incorrect, it's a certain kind of man and a certain kind of woman he's referring to, the Greek word for the man is not just a man but one that has authority over others, the Greek word for woman used is not a single woman but a woman with children, to understand this you have to look to the law to see whom it was that another man shouldn't touch, your going to find out she is the wife of another man or simply the woman of another man, the child or children is the evidence that someone owns her or belongs to him, to avoid fornication which means breaking any of the sexual laws forbidden in the scriptures in the law, was to have your OWN woman, not someone else's, could be wife or it could just be woman as we understand it, nevertheless, it's a sign of sexual unfaithfulness, which is a cause for divorce, not just adultery but ANY of the forbidden sexual acts in the law, incest, animal sex, rape, man on man, some others but never a single man and a single woman not living under their fathers care, Paul continues his letter after including the widows with the unmarried and gives this command that he says is not just his but the Lord's, it's to the " married" not to the one's that " marry " he does not tell them any matters concerning sex and rightly so, it's none of his business, also it was unlawful for a man to teach sex to another man's wife or woman, the agreement for having sex which involves the unmarried has to do with whether it would be rape or not, it had to be consensual sex, for a married person that can only have one woman, it's not a thing of being consensual but more so because of responsibility, done out of love and not forced, you want your husband to cheat, just refuse him sex and see how long he last before he cheats, yea, you will get your justified cause for divorce but you will be held responsible for it, just a side note, most women can hold out longer than most men, if you use sex trying to control your husband, that's evil, no more so than if the husband uses his money to try to control her, what they do for each other should be because they love each other and not for trying to control the other making them their slave, get it?
God breathed referring to the source. God chose certain men and guided them. God was in control then and in control today. His word remains with us.
2 peter 1 - For no prophesy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.
When do you date the book of Jude?
2 Peter begins by stating Peter wrote it. Some say the way 1 & 2 Peter are written are to different to have been the same author but in 1 Peter 5:12 it states silvanus (like a secretary) wrote for Peter. So that could explain the difference.
In Jude 17 he says remember the words spoken by the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ
18. How there would be mockers in the last days.
2 Peter 3:3 Peter say’s that in the last days there will be scoffers.
Peter was an apostle to Jesus.
So Jude had to be taking from Peter not Peter taking from Jude
Peter probably died between AD 64 - 68
I think this is one of your best videos
Books "not having an inherent meaning" doesn't follow from the observation that we all have to decode/interpret the texts that we read. The author's intended meaning is the right one. If someone renegotiates a different meaning they just err.
In the word "theopneustos" the stress is on the first "o". Other than that your pronunciation was very good. In "theopneustia" the stress is on the "i".
The words you speak a bit familiar..."Yea hath God said?"
True, the vast majority of scripture is not inspired by God, but some is, like: love God, by serving others, and love one another, and don't judge. These are inspired words from God.
scripture for nt writer is ot but then ot is corruoted its stil fluid
still changed added instepret the bookk still fluid
the lxx also have differ book order apochrypha fluidity mistranslation
pseudostory
pseduoworitng
pseudobook
paeudooccuramce
hence diffegrent stuff not univocal
not univocal , contradiction
pesudoeberythinh
What is "all Scripture?" Does it include the Catholic books of the Old Testament? Is it self-referential to 2 Timothy itself, in the process of being written? Does it include the later Mormon books, or the Qur'an? Does it include the letters and homilies of the Fathers of the Church?
In the narrowest sense it means, as you say, the Hebrew Bible, which was virtually codified by the Council of Jamnia in the year 91, but took centuries to be accepted by all Jews, but that council had no jurisdiction over Christians who were already another religion by then. The New Testament authors uniformly use the Septuagint, which includes the Catholic books, and the author of 2 Timothy probably did so as well.
Well, even taking "Scripture" in the narrow sense, the surviving Hebrew and Aramaic books, is all of it useful for teaching? It is useful to read how Moses took the life of one Egyptian to save the lives of several Hebrews. But is it useful to read how he placed swords into the hands of the priests and gave them license to go through the camp killing as many as 3000 Hebrews? Or how he authorized the slaughter of tens of thousands of Amalekite men, women and children? If anyone experiences pious joy at devotionally reading those histories, they have a moral screw loose.
We can only find appropriate meanings for the text through spiritual analysis. We cannot read the Bible mindlessly. Either we analyze, or we descend into primitive tribalism. Scripture is useful for teaching, because it makes teaching necessary. Too many readers (and RUclips creators, apparently) are reading without the self-discipline to learn the languages, discern the texts and beg the help of the Holy Spirit.
Dan You are like a traffic sign that someone turned in another wrong direction so people get lost.
astonishingly polemical
This is too deep for me to understand.
what is the exact bible the true pure bible??? no exist
No inherent authority? I think you're confusing the methods of enforcement of biblical practices and the word of God itself. On whom's authority do you then-so speak?
"You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain".
Third Grade Sunday school? Yikes.
robd etc: I think you are confusing bullsh..t with reality.
Seriously, though, do you have any good, credible evidence in support of the existence of any of the "Gods" currently popular?
The academic consensus is wrong about pretty much everything, but it’s especially wrong about the authorship of Saint Paul’s letters to Saint Timothy.
Also to say that the verse would be without meaning because the canon of scripture wasn’t established is only a problem if you believe in Sola Scriptura (basically if you’re a Protestant). Catholics and Eastern Orthodox had tradition to know what was scripturally acceptable before the canonization.
1:25 Peter was in prison at the same time as Paul, in Rome. Therefore Peter’s letters were completed before his death and around the time Paul also died. You can’t say 2 Peter was written much later than Paul’s death because it would’ve also been after Peter’s death.
You don’t make sense!
Exactly. What u expect from a fool? Become folish
Yeah, Joseph smith said the Songs of Solomon are not inspired.
This is such a great point of what we're trying to tell people and why God has restored his church with modern prophets and apostles.
Y'all should read the bible and let Jesus Christ speak to you and read the book of Mormon to see it is the same spirit.
😂😂😂 Joseph Smith was a demon possessed man a LIAR and a fornicator.
He was led by satan.
Why would we need the book of Mormon that's not inspired by the Holy Spirit?
The only word of God given to us is the word of God- the bible. Christ is the word of God.
Mormonism is a CULT of the DEVIL
Heard this before....in gen 3..lol
Dan, are you an atheist?
So you just proved sola scriptura is false, a protestant doctrine.
The Bible’s authority as Scripture springs from the community which hails it as such. It IS inspired Scripture for the believing Christian community. One needn’t go beyond this and pretend like it fell from heaven, fill formed and packaged in convenient codex form. The magesterial Church has long taught this, even as certain protestants today have forgotten it.
This whole thing about the bible not being "univocal" is because people do not understand that the bible is divided into different sections based on the intended target of the writings. This is called dispensationalism which is a well known doctrinal stand among Christians. If you do not understand or accept this truth which is plainly taught in scripture then you will make a mess of the bible and confuse yourself. Also the pastoral epistles do not contradict the other epistles in anyway. The Pauline epistles as a whole are one cohesive segment of the bible which is the doctrinal standard for the current age we live in. What possible proof could you have for claiming that 2 Timothy is not written by Paul other than a bunch of people getting together and simply deciding that for themselves. Academic consensus does not explain the bible's supernatural ability to predict the future or its preservation for thousands of years, or the fact that it is the most printed, disputed, researched, vetted, and rewritten book in all of human history. The term God-breathed or as it is properly translated into English as "given by inspiration" is completely accurate. As scripture is given life by God in a manner like we where given life by God. When you gain life it comes with a spirit or breath that brings reason with it. In the same manner scripture or the word of God is likened to a living thing that can discerns your thoughts and intents and speak with you if you are saved.
Hebrews 4:12 KJV
12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
13 Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do.
The Iliad was preserved for thousands of years.
Predicting the future is easy when a) the "prophecy" was actually written after the events occured, or b) there's no set information so you can take an event happening anywhere in the world, at any time in history, as "oh, THIS is what that poetic passage was referring to"
Some of the pastoral epistles use a more modern greek than the pauline epistles do, using terminology and grammer that Paul did not use. It's like if you were reading Stephen King and then in the middle it was written by Brandon Sanderson. The style and use of language changes and is noticible.
A text being influential does not make it supernatural.
@@huttj509 How about all the prophecies being fulfilled right now that have no other precedent in history like this mass global push to become vegan, stop getting married, or the advent of digital currency and microchips which are necessary for the mark of the beast prophesied in Revelation 13 KJV. Also note the wording in Revelation 13:16 KJV about the mark being 'in' the forehead or hand and not on it, which would have made no sense hundreds of years ago before the invention of microchips.
1 Timothy 4:1-3 KJV
1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
Revelation 13:16-17 KJV
16 And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:
17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.
@@huttj509 Either that or they both were supernatural 👻.
The fact that the bible is divided into different sections based on the target of the writings is one of the reasons why it is not univocal.
When the writers of those letters talk about scripture and it being "god breathed" it is only speaking of the Jewish scriptures as the christian. Scriptures did not yet exist.
You are being anachronistic in your interpretation of those verses. You are also showing you didn't bother to watch the whole video or blatantly ignored it as he addressed your claims.
So... you're a believer?
This is rather bizarre.
Wrong. Dan's wishful thinking is showing.
Mark 12:36 KJV For David himself said *by the Holy Ghost,* The Lord said to my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool.
1 Timothy 4:1 KJV
Now *the Spirit speaketh expressly,* that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
1 Corinthians 2:13 KJV
Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but *which the Holy Ghost teacheth;* comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
None of those verses has anything to do with the 2 Timothy verse they are referring to. And neither do those verses have anything to do with the christian bible as that did not exist when those verses were written so were not an authority or considered "god breathed". The christian canon wasn't invented till over 300 years later.
@@jaclo3112 Wrong. Dan's claim was about the entire Bible. He claimed the Bible didn't point to any authority. I disproved that by showing that the Bible, in many places, showed that the Holy Spirit (God) is looked at as both authority & composer of the scripture. That's why Jesus said the Holy Spirit was writing through King David. God is Father, Son, and Spirit, and so of course there's direct authority speaking in the Bible.
Genesis is framed on two templates as is its contemporaneous timed story telling culture of Greek Myth. They both derive from Babylonian works, the Enuma Elish. I would read more than one book. Thinking the Bible is literal is sporting a very closed mind. You cannot use a document to prove itself. Else everything written and claimed to be true, is. Think.
@@danielpaulson8838 That's wishful thinking by you. You can look at Jesus' words and see that He looked at Genesis as literal. You can then look at all the evidence & see that it points to Jesus being God incarnate. This again points to the reality that Genesis is a true story, that goes back to the beginning. Any other similar story would be a myth that has borrowed from the real story of Genesis.
@@TruthSpeaks Genesis isn’t the oldest. It’s a downstream variant. I won’t argue what you simply deny. History is available for this.
Templates. Do you know what they are?
If scripture is God-breathed, life giving, then it must be all true, if it wasn’t, then it wouldn’t be life giving. It wouldn’t be God-breathed.
It isn’t all true. Therefore…
How do we know it’s not all true? Plenty of ways, but here’s one obvious example. Jesus parents couldn’t have both:
- Fled to Egypt after they were warned in Bethlehem by the Magi that Herod (who was in Jerusalem) was out to kill Jesus
- Attended the temple in Jerusalem (where Herod was) when Jesus was eight days old to fulfil religious obligations recorded in the OT, caused a stir there, then gone straight home to Nazareth
One or both of those accounts is just not true.
@@boboak9168 ahh see, but we hope the we have if it’s not all true. We’re just hoping that when Paul said putting faith in Jesus is how to be saved is a true part not a false part. There becomes no basis of objective truth if some of the Bible is wrong
@@joshuasmith-libertyunivers4953 Personally I hope that bit isn’t true. I hope if there is a God they are good to all their creation, whether they put faith in Jesus or not. Too many people either never get the chance to, or have good reasons not to believe any of the supernatural stories about Jesus.
Regardless, I wish the best for you in this life and whatever may be beyond.
@@boboak9168 likewise!
there no hope for you. If there Jesus. U think that..
U appeal to the scholars authority on scripture? Lol
As opposed to the Vatican's authority?