If you saw 5 oncologists about your suspicious lump, and 4 said it was cancer, they might not be right, but you should give their opinions far more weigh than your neighbour who's, I dunno, a plumber.
This content provider is attempting to be funny by "acting confused". Major fail. He really IS confused and I would suspect would vehemently insist that HE "is right". Which is ironic, considering the topic.
As I consider it more, what this guy is attempting to do is to "make Dan McClellan appear foolish", hence the act he's putting on. He's not interested in a civil conversation or even to actually gain knowledge but only to submit his hyper arrogance, but in the end, it is him who was the fool all along.
I have a PhD - I'm an expert in one incredibly niche thing (fMRI functional connectivity). Public reporting on my area of expertise is generally pretty bad, and fortunately I've only once argued about neuroscience with a layman, and it was like arguing with a 6 year old. I try my best to accept the consensus in other fields, because I know the quick summary of the topic on Wikipedia is only a drop in a bucket of what you need to know to properly engage with the subject, and the whole point of having experts is they've done the thinking for us. You definitely don't have to have a PhD to become an expert in something, but you have to repeatedly and consistently engage with other experts for a very long time (and actually listen to what they say...), and that's difficult outside the university environment.
Any time I hear a professional apologist express an opinion on scholarship/science I think of the Upton Sinclair quote: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it."
“You are the public.” This is a brutally helpful reminder for me. My degrees are in the wrong field and at the wrong levels to meaningfully engage with the scholarship itself, as I’m reminded every time I try to read Dan’s book 😂😭
It's absolutely insane I used to be like that guy. If I actually believed half of the words that were coming out of my own mouth I would have been under my bed praising God, terrified of actual demons, seeking every single person on the streets and making sure each and every person was accepting Jesus right then and there because we are in a holy war, but I didn't and this man doesn't either or else he wouldn't be making stupid TikToks from his car to just argue with anyone who doesn't agree with him 🙄
@@captainobvious8983 I think those soldier looking men were shouting things like “Christ is king” and “he will rule forever more” in English in a Middle Eastern country.
@@captainobvious8983 well they looked like Christian militia and they were bearing two Christian flags and a portrait of white Jesus from what I could remember.
This guy's acting is appalling. "Look at me, I'm trying so hard to understand but you don't make sense". Yeah, we get it you big ham. Dan is always so calm and polite, until he isn't 😂 Cross him at your peril and you'd better have all your ducks in row.
Most important phrase: "Most scholars are engaged in trying to produce arguments that will overturn the consensus." Not only is this true but it is the basics of how all sciences, history, etc operate. If your argument has not overturned the concensus, you need a better argument. That is not the same as saying "I don't agree" or "This doesn't make sense to me". Get a better argument.
This may be the weakest part of Dan's argument because this is scholarship of the Bible - which contains a large number of scholars more interested in supporting their dogma than in subverting a consensus (that is, many evangelical scholars working for institutions that insist on them not contradicting their dogmas). It's the scholars not bound by such conditions that do most of the trying-to-overturn-the-consensus work.
@@KaiHenningsen Academic bias is a problem in every field, though it is true that the Bible does attract more than it's fair share. However, weeding out falsified conclusions based on obvious biases is a part of understanding the academic concensus. One overwhelming problem is that the non academic concensus, which vastly prefers simple answers to complex questions, is much more affected by biases than the academic one and is easier to manipulate. Which is why scholars like Dan have such an important, difficult and onerous job - trying to educate the public about facts and pushing back against disinformation.
@KaiHenningsen So true. I found this out after a couple semesters at a evangelical university. Got a little push back when I wrote a paper from an LDS standpoint. Im former lds. Dogma is king with these folks.
@KaiHenningsen Yeah, every field has academic bias. As someone with degrees in history and anthropology, I understand this all too well. However, most Biblical scholars actually do think like Dan says. We do not SEE this because they do not control the narrative. Preachers, priest, rabbis, etc do that and increasingly nowadays...the internet "experts" which are really apologist. Most preachers in the protestant world get education not in critical Biblical scholarship but in Christian Ministry or Biblical theology which is very, very and I can not stress this enough...very different. Some schools that offer these degrees even require teachers to swear to uphold certain Christian values which then can cool how you present your information to students. My second point is about the conservative nature of scholarship. In many fields (my own for example) it often seems that the "elders' refuse to listen to new ideas. While this is certainly true for some, it's not the main reason change is slow to happen. Presenting a new idea for consideration often taken years if not decades in order to present a new hypothesis. Then years for the other scholars to research, comment and engage. It is a slow process of consideration because it is important not to jump at every flash in the pan because not all will cause a large fire. Tons of ideas are being presented yearly and with about every PhD dissertation (which typically must be a unique work and idea and be defended well for achievement.) Some....are duds. Most are not going to rock major boats. But every so often you get a discovery or a find that changes everything. It still has to grind through that same slow process as this is how you maintain standards in your field. Which is difficult to do with every internet apologist acting as expert. It's frustrating when it is slow to see change here, but often necessary to maintain the standards. But thank the academic gods for that or we'd have people like this "contect provider" as someone in another comment called him, to thank for overwhelming the system with poorly thought out ideas which are not held up for scrutiny. It is already nearly an impossible task to drown these folks out online. Just imagine if these ideas were let to gain more ground and in a place where we should trust the opinions provided are well-considered and an actually majority of the whole and not just the whole lot of a few.
@@lde-m8688 Are you aware that there are quite a number of evangelical Christian institutions who insist that everyone they hire signs a statement of faith, or similar, that defines what statements about that field they are allowed to make? Such as, the Bible MUST be seen as inerrant, for example? Those rules might fit apologists, but they're bad for scholars.
I find the editing of the creator to be frustrating. He's trying to be funny I get it, but it really doesn't seem like he engages in good faith. Then again, most apologists don't in my opinion.
"Digital pats on the butt," that sums up the dopamine hits people get with likes which is a form of confirming one's view. It puts into perspective at how shallow the reward is compared to learning new information and changing one's mind.
You are encouraging people to get a better understanding of the bible. I think that is a good thing. The fact that it bothers other people to the point of making response videos would seem to indicate that these people are scared to dig a little deeper into the truth of the situation.
It's a bit more complicated. They think that their particular interpretation of the Bible is the absolute truth. So the authors must have meant what those apologists insist what the text means. Scholars contradicting that are perceived as a threat.
Thank you, Dan! ❣️ In your honor, I'm going to throw out a new word. Obtuseiosity. When the word obtuse just isn't enough. It's part of the Obstuseocracy. ❤❤❤ Thank you for at least trying to deal with the Legion of The Obtuse.
The fact that Dan has to explain this at all is a sign of just how lost that content creator is. There is no mind so closed as the one that refuses to understand.
I feel like it would help to go over what "the universe" looked like to someone at the time that Genisis was composed. This guy is clearly thinking of Earth floating in space, whereas someone in antiquity would have seen Earth as the land seperated from a ceaseless ocean.
Ancient cosmology in general is something that people have next to no exposure to and the translators of the Bible kinda gloss. That to say, yeah, I totally agree. The texts of the Bible cover a period of about a thousand years of authorship and redaction. In that time, there is a shift from the bronze age cosmology presented in Genesis to an Aristotelean model which is implied by things in the later books of the Torah and all of the New Testament. People looking at this stuff today just jam their square shaped cosmology into a round cosmological hole and don't know enough to recognize how they're completely distorting things as a result.
It seems like the content provider's channel is him repeating things in a sarcastic way then looking off camera in disbelief. Basically, his whole shtick is an argument from incredulity.
I've heard Mac lean on "The Scholarly Consensus" quite a bit. Usually gives a specific scholar or book as well, but I could see why someone would latch onto it.
"Academic consensus" = agreed on by a lot of people with more information and more access to information that people without graduate degrees in the field don't tend to have = it's worth considering even if (maybe, especially if) my less informed ideas conflict with what's being said.
Has he ever seen Star Wars? You know how it opens with the Star Destroyer already on the movie screen? That's because it's a literary technique known as in media res - Latin for "in the middle of things". That's also how the Hebrew Bible starts - in the middle of things. The universe is already there - but it's nothing but chaos. What God does is fashion the chaos into some kind of order that allows for life.
I think that in order for him to acknowledge that, he'd have to acknowledge that the Bible is presenting a cosmology which does not comport with what we observe. Recognizing that for ancient near east people the universe starts out with nothing but water and detritus would mean recognizing that they were wrong about stuff, as we obviously reject that cosmology today.
Yeah, I feel like this scholarly argument is easy to understand and it's frustrating that this guy isn't doing it. If God creates the heavens by saying "let there be light," there needs to be darkness there first for something to be made light. If God created the heavens, he would have needed to exist somewhere before the heavens were created. The Bible clearly states that this is the chaos.
It is like fixing a pipe leak successfully, and then thinking you are a plumber. The real plumbers are trying to give advice and technique on how to diagnose a problem, but the DIYers are acting like they know better because they know what aisle the pipe fittings are on at Home Depot.
As an academic (philosopher) I can only share Dan's position. We have in common a field of study where everyone poses as an expert. The hours I spent reading the texts, mastering the different logics, understanding the fundamental theses of the different sciences (biology, physics, economics, etc.), understanding the arguments of my peers, all this is swept away by individuals who do not read, do not have the skills, do not have the time and resources to keep up to date with academic debates. This is why I subscribed to this channel. What interests me is not so much the content but how Dan tries to explain and popularize complex academic content.
I find myself constantly arguing with people, and I’m relatively comfortable in my knowledge as a layperson… but even then, I know that my arguments jump around inconsistently because I don’t have the years of experience in channeling that knowledge and being able to cite where my information comes from.
@@jackaltwinky77 Part of academic work is teaching. This work allows one to channel one's knowledge and thus make it clearer.Try to teach what you know by asking your listeners to critique your proposals.
Dans efforts are to make the distinction between biblical data and Ecclesiastical Dogma! He is not trying to change anyones beliefs but to present logical objective data and debunk personal subjective interpretations that youtube creators post as factual when they are not...
Thanks Dan. Yes, this is in accord with the practice of the natural sciences too. Science doesn't claim to prove anything - accepting this simple fact would dramatically transform the debate between atheists and people with a faith belief. I think sometimes the problems here are not to do with epistemology but rather emotional and psychological. Many of us seem terrified of living with what is essentially profound uncertainty about existential questions. Understandable for sure but we can, I believe, do better.
I think it's also useful to point out that the "heavens" is just the sky. In the bible, heaven isn't some alternate reality, and it's not outer space (which isn't mentioned in the bible). When god creates the heavens, this is the process of creating the crystal dome in a flat state and then "stretching out the sky" by forming it into a bubble shape that creates the "expanse" of an air bubble under the water. Thus, the sky is the dome up in the air where all the lights are hung (sun, moon, and stars) and the undescribed area above it where god dwells.
Side note, the Bible does depict the heavens as outer space as well. Recalling that the documents here range from a period of around a thousand years, the bronze age cosmology presented in the creation myth is from an earlier period. By the time you get to the gospels, Aristotelian cosmology has been fully adopted and is present throughout the ideas of the Jesus follower movement (the location of demons in the fiery realm below the moon etc.) It's not outer space as we conceive of it today. But it was outer space for its time.
@maklelan I don't think you've correctly used the word consensus as it is defined in any dictionary I'm aware of. You have said at several points in this video that a consensus is the "majority belief" of scholars and that's definitely not the definition -- look it up. I was brought up to understand it meant unanimity but even that's not exactly right either. It is sort of the point when there is no longer any (serious?) disagreement. This may sound like a minor point, but there really is a big difference between "there is no disagreement among scholars on this issue" and"51% or more of scholars agree on this issue". An election may result in 50.5% of the people agreeing on one candidate, but that doesn't mean there aren't 49.5% who are super pissed and disagree vehemently with the outcome.
I suspect the OP's performance is just a distraction so people don't notice he doesn't have an actual point to make. As with so many in American Christian churches, its just performative, not substantative.
Oh my god! Are you ever going to enrage this guy, just by pointing out that his ability to understand the Bible is limited by his lack of knowledge of Hebrew and Greek and his unfamiliarity with decades of scholarship. However, he does has nice taste in music, even if he can't balance it properly on his soundtrack.
How is it so hard to understand that the creation account of Genesis is God(s) bringing order to a chaotic universe and thus making it look like it does today? God(s) create stuff, move stuff around and transform stuff into other kinds of stuff. That's not super complicated to get.
Hey Dan. As a scholar of religion, do you have any scholarly work on the debates of Pelagius ? Why he was condemned as a heretic and if he was part of an earlier Christian tradition?
"Darth Plagueis was a Dark Lord of the Sith so powerful and so wise, he could use the Force to influence the midi-chlorians to create life. He had such a knowledge of the dark side, he could even keep the ones he cared about from dying." I know you're talking about a different guy, but the names are similar so I'm leaving this here.
@@wrathofainz right he was the master to Darth Sirius and even no one knows if he actually achieved creating life. Since I don’t want to give any spoilers away, I’ll let you decide!
Dan, do you have any thoughts on the hypothesis that Tehom refers not just to a primordial ocean, but a primordial god of the oceans vanquished by YHWH in an expression of the chaoskampf motif?
If it wasn't so performative and over-the-top theatrical, or even done in good faith like Doc points out, it would be a lot easier to engage with and take serious. Got to stand out in the crowd to make it on tik tok or whatever I guess
I feel like the core of his defense is, "but it wouldn't make sense if God began to create when there was already a chaotic unformed Earth." I have news for you, friend: the story doesn't make sense. It doesn't match reality because they didn't know what the reality was. What they wrote has logical problems. Welcome to the Bible.
While Genesis 1 is written as if the Earth already existed before the creating, this is accurate, the actual text as it reads today, in the Maoretic, in the Septuagint, in the Samaritan, and in all versions of the current Hebrew phrasing make Gen 1:1 read "In the beginning God created the sky and the Earth". There is no ambiguity in what Gen 1:1 says. It is possible, perhaps likely, that it originally read "In the beginning of God's creation of the sky and the Earth...", but this requires a change to the verb "bara" (created) making it into "bro" "(the process of) creation". That change is absolutely required for the Hebrew to read as Dan says it should read. It requires a change in the pronunciation of the text. The word "bro" would be spelled the same as the word "bara", but pronounced differently. Rashi proposed this interpretation, and the change of "bara" to "bro", but it isn't as widely accepted as Dan claims, because it makes a hypothesis of textual corruption.
You are completely missing the point. The NARRATIVE does not allow, given the reading "In the Beginning God created...", that verse one was a/the creative ACT. It is a narrative INTRO using a Topic Fronted Prepositional Phrase to introduce HOW God created - Which begins in verse 3. Jeez!
I am new to your channel and you may have already addressed this but how does a non Jew deal with Jesus telling the apostles he came for the people of Israel only? A Samaritan woman pleaded for help and although he finally did help she was still looked down on.
Wow I'd hate to see this "creator" tackle science: Most agreed upon theory=supports most of the evidence thus far, NOT "proven as right" Unfortunately, Dan's probably given this dude enough ammo to straw man ad hominem "Oh I'm just too dumb to understand and don't belong to the Academy." Kudos to Dan though for putting on the waders, grabbing a lantern and trudging under the bridge to reveal an actual troll.
The consensus is that terrorists flew planes into the World Trade Centre. Some, however, believe the planes were empty and radio controlled and that the occupants are hiding from their families. I go with the consensus every time.
Could someone clarify for me what Dan means by "universe?" Because I think of outer space, so then it's confusing to say that when God began to create the universe, the earth was already there (how could earth exist in a place that doesn't yet exist?) Does he mean that "the universe" is just everything on and within earth (sky, ocean, birds, plants, etc)?
Read the NRSVUE version of Genesis 1 online. Basically, God put all the stars in our own atmosphere exactly like glitterflakes in a snowglobe. The universe is just earth, and all the lights in the sky are directly in our sky.
I support Dan, but his arguments in his support are rough. "I dont say that the academic consensus is true. My evidence is that I have said multiple times that it is a laughable mischaracterization of me."
Isn't consensus different than the majority of scholars? A consensus is something like 98% argue X and 2% argue Y. No scholar can seriously aim to overturn the consensus in a field. That happens so rarely, like with an Einstein or a Chomsky, say. Because when we think about arguing against an established position, it's usually such a small thing that most scholars don't have an opinion on it.
I too am dum. But I've been dumming wrong. Because I'm not getting pats on the butt. Do I gotta be in a dum religion first? Can I maybe get some pats on my butt ... here in this comments section? Anyone? :)
I agree that Genesis 1v1-2 indicates that the "earth" pre-existed the creation of light. But this does not, therefore, mean it (the earth) was uncreated. It simply means the Scriptures do not record WHEN it was created. The Scriptures do not record the creation of angels and other spiritual beings - does this, therefore, mean that they were uncreated? I have never heard such a suggestion! Other Scriptures proclaim God to be the Creator of ALL THINGS - "ALL THINGS" - includes everything that is a "THING". Some "things" are not actually "things" - but the absence of some "thing". Darkness is not a "thing"; it is simply the absence of some thing - LIGHT. Therefore, I would suggest, God can not properly be said to have created "darkness".
Bro, seriously! The difference is whether god created the earth from nothing or from something - like an unformed mass of clay into a sculpture. You guys are completely missing the points here. And how many times do you not hear Dan when he says that you are assuming univocality. Gen.1:1 is not an ACT of creation its a statement about creation. The ACTs of creation take place in verses 3 and onward from a mass of material as stated in verse 2 where the earth was enveloped in amass of water. It was later caused to appear and to be formed. Jeez!
@@veridicusmaximus6010 I do understand what Dan is saying. That v2 describes the state of the earth prior to the creation of light....and I agree...for I myself made this observation and have mentioned it to others. BUT....and this is where I differ from Dan .... just because the earth (in whatever form) existed prior to the craetion of light, this does not mean that the earth itself was uncreated. Other Biblical passages declare that God created "all things" - a term which includes the earth.
@@banzakidimye348 Well, that is irrelevant since nothing in Genesis 1 or Genesis period tells us either way whether the earth was created from nothing or if it was created in that state of Chaos. What's the point? "All things" are vague by virtue of certain contextual and theological ideas at the time - all things could be all material things or a literary phrase that does not encompass literally everything just as when the woman at the well said that she met a man (Jesus) that told all things about her life - obviously that did not happen. Secondly, all things is not mentioned in Genesis 1 so your reference is what Dan would say as an assumption of unvocality. You can't do that without demonstrating such.
@@veridicusmaximus6010 Prior to Day ONE - the earth was "without form and void"; God created it "without form and void/empty" Genesis 1 records the process by which God then gave it "form" and how He then "filled" what was previously "void/empty" with life.
@@banzakidimye348 That's completely against the grammar, narrative context and purpose of HOLINESS that the writer emphasizes through separation of this chaos. God would never create chaos and emptiness - he conquers it and forms it for a purpose that is holy. And the writer would never separate this, as a creative act, from the days of creation if this was an ACT of his creation. Verse one is Topic Fronted Prepositional Phrase to a narrative story about God's creative acts starting in verse 3!
and isnt this idea of the earth existing but not Being anything yet, just similar to the philosophical idea of matter vs form ? where form describes the physical properties, but matter simply takes up space and just is? that's how i understood it but perhaps thats not fully correct, either way i'm not the expert lol so i wont pretend i am! apparently a foreign concept to ppl lol
"When God began to create the heavens and THE EARTH ..." I still don't get how "began to create the earth" means he didn't create the earth. It reads to me like when God starting making things, the earth's initial (= initially created) state was high entropy.
He did create the earth. The point is that he created it out of stuff that was already there. The argument here is against creation ex nihilo. There was, as far as Genesis is concerned, never a state of nothingness. Exactly what state everything was in we can't know, as we only have one line to work with here and it start in media res. "The earth was welter and waste" can mean a lot of things. Maybe it was a loose accumulation of debris similar to a comet. Maybe it was a swirling mess of disorganized rock and dirt. Maybe it was a big wet ball of mud. It's impossible to say. I suppose another way to think about it is conceptually. "When Bible god began to create [something you would recognize as] the earth..." He took the random assortment of Lego bricks and made a firetruck out of them, to borrow an analogy from a previous poster. Maybe that assortment was pieces of past creations. Maybe it was loose, individual bricks. It doesn't really matter except to say that they were already there and were repurposed to create the earth.
“The heavens and the earth” is treated as one conceptual item/package that refers to the universe as authors understood it at the time. An example I love to use: When I began to create my peanut butter and jelly sandwich, the ingredients were disorganized and the kitchen was a mess.
Think of someone writing you a story about how they made a chair out of a pile of 2x4s and some plywood. The person starts like this: In HS I made a chair in wood-shop and I'll I had was a pile of 2x4s and plywood. And then he tells you how he did it over the course of the semester. When, in the narrative, did he make the chair? Was it at the first statement or subsequently? Genesis 1:1 is a Topic Fronted Prepositional Phrase (it is also a dependent clause NOT an independent clause) - to a narrative story about how God created the Heavens-and-the-Earth (a summary phrase of all of that was created) during the following 7 days. It is saying that WHEN God created the heaven and the earth (verses 3 onward) the earth was... verse 2. So when God began to do this verse 2 was ALREADY in existence. Thus, creatio ex materia (creation from material) not creatio ex nihilo (creation from nothing). I guess it is true that once you're indoctrinated into some lens by which to read something in English some people can't see past it!
@@veridicusmaximus6010 John 1 says nothing was made apart from the Word, that through him God made "all things" which of course includes the earth. So when people assume univocality, it's understandable they'll have trouble seeing how Gen 1 might have a different view (never mind that the respective authors would have conceived of "heavens" and "earth" differently). My issue is linguistic, that "When God began to create ... the earth" literally says God actually created the earth. Thus the principal clause would by implication indicate its state at initial creation, not at preexistence. I see no indication from Dan's explanation that it says the earth was preexisting. Is there some nuance in the Hebrew that he failed to explain?
@@MusicalRaichu Yes, John is not Genesis - and many are assuming univocality. So at best they are suggesting that John contradicts Genesis or that John takes precedent over Genesis and Genesis must be interpreted in light of John - that's stupid and completely lacks any demonstration. Second, they also forget to consider that John borrows from middle Platonic philosophy about the LOGOS. The Logos was a created being. As to verse one of Genesis - again is not a creative act but a statement summarizing what will be explicated in verse 3 and onward. This is a headline so to speak to a narrative story that sets the stage just prior to the creative acts in verses 3 and onward. It is a Topic Fronted prepositional Phrase. It is not saying that God created the heavens and the earth and then subsequently did further creation over 6 days. This is true whether it is a independent clause or a dependent clause. The word 'created' does not necessitate out of nothing. It has overlap with formed. If your take was in view this initial creation would be part of the days. By not understanding the narrative and the grammar and the context (particularly verse 2) you are forcing it into something that makes no sense!
Dan I think all this social media is making you meaner. 😕 Yes these TikTok apologists are not technically competent in most of the disciplines you are, but this kind of smackdown is a turn-off to anyone who's not already on the same page as you.
It really goes to show people that this contenet creator doesn't even take his own position seriously. Like dude, does this guy not see how he's making his own position into a tasteless "joke"? Idk man, that's what I'm getting from it. It would be one thing if he was doing this to like a flat earth theory (maybe he does I don't really know) but if he seriously holds a Christian position then it's just shameful in my opinion.
I don't see anything wrong with treating one's positions as frivolous. Sometimes, I just want to make a joke regardless of its contents. It's the form and presentation which I care about. Even the sacred can be profane if you want it to be. The problem is that he's using this affectation in an effort to discredit someone but it is in fact he who has taken an incorrect position. Put another way, it's okay to be goofy, it's even okay to use your goofiness in service of dunking on someone. But at least make an effort to be correct. Otherwise your position becomes an actual joke in that nobody should ever take it seriously regardless of the presentation.
@@rainbowkrampus It comes across as really condescending, like he's objectively wrong, that's whatever, people have the right to be wrong if they want to. I guess they even have the right to be condescending if I think about it. It's just like... When someone mixes the two it just really comes across as tasteless to me. I do see what you're saying and I also agree with most if not all of it as well.
@@MicaiahSnow Well yeah, the point is to be condescending. It's a rhetorical tactic meant to belittle. Like, when I do it, it's because I'm in conversation with some sort of neo-naz* or christofascist (or possibly just someone who is willfully misunderstanding me). My goal is to signal my utter contempt for the person and their ideas. The distastefulness is all a matter of perspective. You and I are, broadly, on Dan's "side". Or at least, on the side of the ideas he communicates. And of course, being very rational and cool (and attractive to the types of partner we wish to be attractive too) we see the underlying irrationality in the arguments of the apologist and bristle a bit at the unearned condescension he is affecting. But his audience is experiencing something similar. It is what it is. We're all dumb monkeys flinging poo at heart. It's good to keep high minded ideals. But rhetoric is about meeting your audience where they're at. Some audiences love the poo and I don't personally consider myself above wading in. But it's not for everyone and since you never know what rhetorical tactic will be effective until after the fact, I generally take a "fling it at a wall and whatever sticks, works" view on what "good rhetoric" looks like. So I like Dan's approach as much as the apologist's. Even if the apologist is in error.
Hey Dan, love you babe but you maybe better off just ignoring when people get rude with you like that. You seem kinda irritated and, of course, you have every right to be and I do like when you solidly dunk on someone, like you do. But, like, your energy seems a little off and.. I mean, his argument was so bad faith and hinged so firmly upon sarcasm that you genuinely just too good a dude to pollute your vibes with that kind of toxicity. Just a thought, baby. You know better than me.
Dan you fell into the trap. Don't do that. Don't talk down to the audience. I know you didn't mean it but what came across is "I'm you are not a scholar so sit down and shut up you have nothing of value to add." That is a bad look and hands him a rhetorical victory.
Dan's not wrong. The people on the internet who say "do your own research" and come up with stuff like the content creator are completely unable to do so and need to be made aware of that. He's doing the world a service.
I frankly don't' care about that - I'm all for talking down to people particularly when you have already exhausted other avenues and know the hypocrisy of some of these turds. They need to be mocked and ridiculed into submission. It's alright Dan if you choose not too - I got your back --
So it is okay for god to be located outside space and time but anything else cant possibly be? The earth already being there confounding this guy so much a) seems like and act and 1) seems like hes just fighting with dogma because it isn't inconsistent with anything churches teach only reality.
He just wants to ride your coattails. the stupid looks acting method shows he is using someone elses words to contradict you. you are giving him his 15 minutes
Important missed point here by Dan. So it’s time again for let’s do this right. The chaos is in the waters, not in the universe. The universe in this story does not exist because their concept of the sky does not exceed the firmament. In neareastern religion only the throne of El, An or whoever the high deity was exceeded the firmament. Since the firmament did not exist, then nor did the heavens. First off what is this about, the is originally about the excession of Uruk over Eridu. Eridu was the swamp with Eridu in the swamp, it’s like a cradle of civilization. Uruk represents the aspiration to unite the various cradles so that it can reach up the Euphrates for those goods it needs to be a Bronze Age culture. Ubaid culture original harvested up the Tigris watershed. As the Uruk period began what we call the indoeuropeans settled into the Kura-Araxas basin and now free access to minerals is deprived. So the old gods of Eridu, Mesopotamia can’t deal with sky sprites, water sprites, animal spirits and so the create a higher level of divine beings, noted by the rows of horns. This is why we don’t need to create a universe first. There is probably some historic memory from Ubaid 0 in which the swamp was formed by an oxbow of the Euphrates cut off in a flood, this left and Island. The sky to them is light another kind of fluid held back by the firmament. This concepts of stations or houses where the moon and the sun rise a set from. These are places that only a few mystical people have seen. So this idea in Genesis 1, or the framework is borrowed from Mesopotamian culture and is not framed in the 4th century or by Moses in Egypt, but in the 3rd to 4th Millenium BCE as various dynastic wannabe contenders rise up. Other components are borrowed, Nammu the mother of Enki (borrowed by Uruk to become the mother of the gods) easily (or mindlessly) conceived god but needs to be instructed by Enki how to make humans of clay. The Tahom much more resembles the substrate god of Eridu than Tiamat, the shape shifting tempest of the Enuma Elish. What this tells us and W.G.Lambert spells this out is that there are many creation myths in Assyria and Babylon and the Enuma Elis and its NeoAssyrian counterpart are just the dynasty preferred creation story, even so some in the dynasty might not have believed these (i.e. Nabonidus wanted to go back to an Akkad and Sumer run by the old gods, and he went to western Arabia to figure all of this out). Thus the little moral to the story is this. In the beginning was Ubaid 0, which was not that successful and culture focused on the success in Eridu. That success was linked to their natural gods, the waters. The true tempest was the Euphrates. But the copper age came and they lost access to their tradition mineral gathering areas. More cities came along, probably each city had foundation myths. But the power comes from cities that trade and gain wealth, build armies spread and conquer. In fact nearly all the stories we have come from the dynastic period, few from the Early dynastic period are written. Thus these cities are keeping these stories in private transmissions not dynastic transmission. Then the Yehud enter captivity and are dispersed to the cities of Akkad and Sumer and they are hearing these stories, and a some point they return and digest these. We have to hit the nail not the board, that simply makes racket. The Bible keeps pinging Mesopotamian stories and in particular the gods of Eridu, a city in never even mentions. It mentions Ur, 10 miles away. We can do better than the Bible, we can hit the nail on head. Elements derived from Eridu’s mythology are found in Genesis 1, 2 in the flood myth (the waters beneath, Absu), the savior god (Enki), they are found in the story of Jonah (“I” + Abgul of heaven and earth), etc…. Why is the Bible constantly pinging Eridu, it’s mythology. Why is the Bible focused on a not so politically important city 2000 miles away as the foot walks. Why not focus on Egypt? Why is Abraham from Ur and Haran (Cities of Suen), why does Jonah need to go to Ninevah. Why do the mothers of the patriarchs insist their men select from Haran/Ur and not the Canaanites. What we can see in Genesis is a fascination of Eastern culture, the depth of its history, the sophistication of its literature, the magnificence of its cities. This is why they are constructing their myth based on elements from eastern local traditions. The final trivial point. The universe begins in nothing. As far as we can tell, and it’s not certain by any means, that space was in a highly disequilibrium state and inflated, at the end of inflation an unknown mechanism poured energy into the system. This process is not bounded, and we do not know the bounds of the universe, only that which we see, or the age. We only know the age and bounds of the visible universe, CMBR is that edge. There was no earth, no light, no heat everything was exotic. So let me make this clear, the cosmology is off-limits, we cannot see it, we only see the light emitted by the lowest transition state of the hydrogen molecule during its formation (deionization). It will be billions of years before stable water and planets form. The early material epoch was characterized by hot gas, no stars, radiant heat but no light, the heat of the universe blocked star formation. The next epoch was characterized by cooling and short lived blue giants which began the formation of carbon, oxygen nitrogen. This caused another round of ionization. This led to the generation of stars with these elements complex molecules in space which ended in another round of star formation and the production of most of the heavy elements we see today. Earth comes late in the process, life even later and the biblical creatures very late. That universe is not in the Bible, no arguments about this, the biblical authors are ignorant of the expanse of the cosmos, it’s not in Mesopotamian, Greek, biblical, Egyptian. The universe that we understand is nowhere in any literature of the late classical period.
Dan is so so so profoundly unlikeable. It's unfortunate, because what he says (besides his insulting overuse of the word "laughably") is fascinating and poignant... but his delivery is dare I say it... laughably awful
The argument is pointless. One guy is talking about scholarship, the other is talking about dogma. Dan's reasoned arguments are no more pertinent to the other guy, than the other guy's dramatic confusion is to Dan.
Academia is under the thumb of the Church on what they can and cannot teach. Ex corde Ecclesiae. vs PaRDeS Biblical exegesis: Peshat (literal), Remez (allegorical), Derash (comparative), and Sod (esoteric).
Actually, your 2 main goals are to share the progressive academic consensus and to push what the progressive academicconsensusclaims. If you actually shared the whole of consensus, then people would put some weight into what you claim. But, since you never use any conservative academic scholars and only progressive academic scholars, your claims are moot. This is why you never have any videos of conservative academics or recommend any conservative academics as your resource.
The folks signing statements of faith and who would be fired for disagreeing with the dogma of their employers are not engaging in academics. There's no such thing as "conservative academics", because if you're coming in with a set of biases (movement conservatism), you cannot honestly engage in the scholarship.
@VulcanLogic And yet there are conservative and progressive academic scholars. So while your opinion might sound nice and warm, it doesn't match reality.
@@sbaker8971 Yes, there are conservative and progressive scholars. There's no conservative or progressive scholarship; there's just scholarship. Welcome to reality.
I frequently dunk on people by displaying how confused I am.
Based
I love how every single online apologist is always so smug and arrogant. I thought pride was a deadly sin or something
Such apologists believe that humans are incurable sinners (or they wouldn't need salvation) and behave accordingly.
😂😂
The Seven Deadly Sins are a post-biblical invention.
Oh gods, not this guy again. I find his presentation utterly insufferable. He’s less watchable than any of the other apologists you’ve featured
His entire argument is incredulity. "I don't understand anything, but shall now opine at length."
Who is him?
I don't know; that arrogant mop-top kid who thinks he knows more than any objective biblical scholar gives this guy a run for his money. 😄
@@Noneya5555Yeah, mop top is my vote for worst.
@@johnrichardson7629 ikr? 😄
If you saw 5 oncologists about your suspicious lump, and 4 said it was cancer, they might not be right, but you should give their opinions far more weigh than your neighbour who's, I dunno, a plumber.
OR THE USE THE STAR TREK LINE.
DAMMIT JIM I'm a doctor not a plumber
This content provider is attempting to be funny by "acting confused". Major fail. He really IS confused and I would suspect would vehemently insist that HE "is right". Which is ironic, considering the topic.
@@DRayL_ I just want to say how much I love the dig "content provider" because he isn't "creating" anything
yeah, the purposeful acting like he's confused to show he is really interested in what he is responding to is laughable.
It's overdone and high key cringe. Sorry to see Dr. McClellan get this triggered over it (or parts of it, at least).
As I consider it more, what this guy is attempting to do is to "make Dan McClellan appear foolish", hence the act he's putting on. He's not interested in a civil conversation or even to actually gain knowledge but only to submit his hyper arrogance, but in the end, it is him who was the fool all along.
Seriously, the presentation in his video is insufferable
I have a PhD - I'm an expert in one incredibly niche thing (fMRI functional connectivity). Public reporting on my area of expertise is generally pretty bad, and fortunately I've only once argued about neuroscience with a layman, and it was like arguing with a 6 year old. I try my best to accept the consensus in other fields, because I know the quick summary of the topic on Wikipedia is only a drop in a bucket of what you need to know to properly engage with the subject, and the whole point of having experts is they've done the thinking for us. You definitely don't have to have a PhD to become an expert in something, but you have to repeatedly and consistently engage with other experts for a very long time (and actually listen to what they say...), and that's difficult outside the university environment.
Apologists are to biblical studies what astrologers are to astronomy.
He's not an apologist, he's a clown.
@2023-better-research that's the same thing
@@UltraVioletKnight Nope
@@2023-better-research I stand by what I said. If you don’t like the example in this video, take your pick. The criticism still applies.
@@magepunk2376 He's not an apologist. Yes, your criticism still applies nevertheless.
Any time I hear a professional apologist express an opinion on scholarship/science I think of the Upton Sinclair quote: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it."
My favorite quote ❤❤❤
“You are the public.” This is a brutally helpful reminder for me. My degrees are in the wrong field and at the wrong levels to meaningfully engage with the scholarship itself, as I’m reminded every time I try to read Dan’s book 😂😭
I’m very comfortable following the consensus on a subject if that consensus is of experts on said subject.
Yeah, when the consensus of plumbers regarding a problem in my kitchen is X I'm not going to contradict them either.
This creator is making an incredibly strong case that "What I heard was... I'm right" is his response regardless of what was actually said.
These people expose their own cognitive dissonance by not understanding the difference between “consensus” and “correct”.
I really like mean Dan. One need not give respect to liars and willful fools.
It's absolutely insane I used to be like that guy. If I actually believed half of the words that were coming out of my own mouth I would have been under my bed praising God, terrified of actual demons, seeking every single person on the streets and making sure each and every person was accepting Jesus right then and there because we are in a holy war, but I didn't and this man doesn't either or else he wouldn't be making stupid TikToks from his car to just argue with anyone who doesn't agree with him 🙄
Isn’t that the same apologist who made that video of a supposed military march thing in Iraq?
@MarshalMarrs-eu9yh I'm not sure, I'd have to look into it but idk if I'd even want to, he's pretty annoying 😂
@@captainobvious8983 I think those soldier looking men were shouting things like “Christ is king” and “he will rule forever more” in English in a Middle Eastern country.
@@MarshalMarrs-eu9yh What!!! Were they like a Christian militia or something??
@@captainobvious8983 well they looked like Christian militia and they were bearing two Christian flags and a portrait of white Jesus from what I could remember.
This guy's acting is appalling. "Look at me, I'm trying so hard to understand but you don't make sense". Yeah, we get it you big ham.
Dan is always so calm and polite, until he isn't 😂 Cross him at your peril and you'd better have all your ducks in row.
Actually I think is acting is really good.
Most important phrase: "Most scholars are engaged in trying to produce arguments that will overturn the consensus." Not only is this true but it is the basics of how all sciences, history, etc operate. If your argument has not overturned the concensus, you need a better argument. That is not the same as saying "I don't agree" or "This doesn't make sense to me". Get a better argument.
This may be the weakest part of Dan's argument because this is scholarship of the Bible - which contains a large number of scholars more interested in supporting their dogma than in subverting a consensus (that is, many evangelical scholars working for institutions that insist on them not contradicting their dogmas). It's the scholars not bound by such conditions that do most of the trying-to-overturn-the-consensus work.
@@KaiHenningsen Academic bias is a problem in every field, though it is true that the Bible does attract more than it's fair share. However, weeding out falsified conclusions based on obvious biases is a part of understanding the academic concensus. One overwhelming problem is that the non academic concensus, which vastly prefers simple answers to complex questions, is much more affected by biases than the academic one and is easier to manipulate. Which is why scholars like Dan have such an important, difficult and onerous job - trying to educate the public about facts and pushing back against disinformation.
@KaiHenningsen So true. I found this out after a couple semesters at a evangelical university. Got a little push back when I wrote a paper from an LDS standpoint. Im former lds. Dogma is king with these folks.
@KaiHenningsen Yeah, every field has academic bias. As someone with degrees in history and anthropology, I understand this all too well. However, most Biblical scholars actually do think like Dan says. We do not SEE this because they do not control the narrative. Preachers, priest, rabbis, etc do that and increasingly nowadays...the internet "experts" which are really apologist. Most preachers in the protestant world get education not in critical Biblical scholarship but in Christian Ministry or Biblical theology which is very, very and I can not stress this enough...very different. Some schools that offer these degrees even require teachers to swear to uphold certain Christian values which then can cool how you present your information to students.
My second point is about the conservative nature of scholarship. In many fields (my own for example) it often seems that the "elders' refuse to listen to new ideas. While this is certainly true for some, it's not the main reason change is slow to happen. Presenting a new idea for consideration often taken years if not decades in order to present a new hypothesis. Then years for the other scholars to research, comment and engage. It is a slow process of consideration because it is important not to jump at every flash in the pan because not all will cause a large fire. Tons of ideas are being presented yearly and with about every PhD dissertation (which typically must be a unique work and idea and be defended well for achievement.) Some....are duds. Most are not going to rock major boats. But every so often you get a discovery or a find that changes everything. It still has to grind through that same slow process as this is how you maintain standards in your field. Which is difficult to do with every internet apologist acting as expert.
It's frustrating when it is slow to see change here, but often necessary to maintain the standards. But thank the academic gods for that or we'd have people like this "contect provider" as someone in another comment called him, to thank for overwhelming the system with poorly thought out ideas which are not held up for scrutiny. It is already nearly an impossible task to drown these folks out online. Just imagine if these ideas were let to gain more ground and in a place where we should trust the opinions provided are well-considered and an actually majority of the whole and not just the whole lot of a few.
@@lde-m8688 Are you aware that there are quite a number of evangelical Christian institutions who insist that everyone they hire signs a statement of faith, or similar, that defines what statements about that field they are allowed to make? Such as, the Bible MUST be seen as inerrant, for example? Those rules might fit apologists, but they're bad for scholars.
I find the editing of the creator to be frustrating. He's trying to be funny I get it, but it really doesn't seem like he engages in good faith. Then again, most apologists don't in my opinion.
"Digital pats on the butt," that sums up the dopamine hits people get with likes which is a form of confirming one's view. It puts into perspective at how shallow the reward is compared to learning new information and changing one's mind.
You are encouraging people to get a better understanding of the bible. I think that is a good thing. The fact that it bothers other people to the point of making response videos would seem to indicate that these people are scared to dig a little deeper into the truth of the situation.
It's a bit more complicated. They think that their particular interpretation of the Bible is the absolute truth. So the authors must have meant what those apologists insist what the text means. Scholars contradicting that are perceived as a threat.
"Digital pats on the butt". That HAS to become a T-shirt or a bumper sticker right now. C'mon someone!
I don’t think he is trying to understand it. I think he is just being silly as hell.
Thank you, Dan! ❣️
In your honor, I'm going to throw out a new word.
Obtuseiosity.
When the word obtuse just isn't enough.
It's part of the Obstuseocracy.
❤❤❤
Thank you for at least trying to deal with the Legion of The Obtuse.
I do declare! That young man has surely worked himself up into a terrible case of the vapors!
The fact that Dan has to explain this at all is a sign of just how lost that content creator is. There is no mind so closed as the one that refuses to understand.
Especially the one that can't accept they are wrong or seek obsesiv to be right
I like your Buddhism-esque quote at the end. 👍
It's performative. We don't know what this person actually believes. Same as the padres up at church this morning.
I feel like it would help to go over what "the universe" looked like to someone at the time that Genisis was composed. This guy is clearly thinking of Earth floating in space, whereas someone in antiquity would have seen Earth as the land seperated from a ceaseless ocean.
Ancient cosmology in general is something that people have next to no exposure to and the translators of the Bible kinda gloss.
That to say, yeah, I totally agree. The texts of the Bible cover a period of about a thousand years of authorship and redaction. In that time, there is a shift from the bronze age cosmology presented in Genesis to an Aristotelean model which is implied by things in the later books of the Torah and all of the New Testament.
People looking at this stuff today just jam their square shaped cosmology into a round cosmological hole and don't know enough to recognize how they're completely distorting things as a result.
Maybe he'd understand better if he stopped playing the videos at times four speed?
to be fair to this confused child, I have a similar reaction when I hear people take Genesis seriously
The fit being a blind guy is so nice
It seems like the content provider's channel is him repeating things in a sarcastic way then looking off camera in disbelief. Basically, his whole shtick is an argument from incredulity.
Dan is on here sharing knowledge like Tiger Woods giving a lesson on RUclips.. the creator is on her telling Tiger he's wrong...😂
I've heard Mac lean on "The Scholarly Consensus" quite a bit. Usually gives a specific scholar or book as well, but I could see why someone would latch onto it.
This guy has got pretending to be confused down perfectly. Actually to be fair, I don't think he is that bright, so he probably is confused.
"Academic consensus" = agreed on by a lot of people with more information and more access to information that people without graduate degrees in the field don't tend to have = it's worth considering even if (maybe, especially if) my less informed ideas conflict with what's being said.
Has he ever seen Star Wars? You know how it opens with the Star Destroyer already on the movie screen? That's because it's a literary technique known as in media res - Latin for "in the middle of things". That's also how the Hebrew Bible starts - in the middle of things. The universe is already there - but it's nothing but chaos. What God does is fashion the chaos into some kind of order that allows for life.
I think that in order for him to acknowledge that, he'd have to acknowledge that the Bible is presenting a cosmology which does not comport with what we observe.
Recognizing that for ancient near east people the universe starts out with nothing but water and detritus would mean recognizing that they were wrong about stuff, as we obviously reject that cosmology today.
Yeah, I feel like this scholarly argument is easy to understand and it's frustrating that this guy isn't doing it. If God creates the heavens by saying "let there be light," there needs to be darkness there first for something to be made light. If God created the heavens, he would have needed to exist somewhere before the heavens were created. The Bible clearly states that this is the chaos.
I've never seen Dan this frustrated before
Scholarship v Feelings.
It is like fixing a pipe leak successfully, and then thinking you are a plumber. The real plumbers are trying to give advice and technique on how to diagnose a problem, but the DIYers are acting like they know better because they know what aisle the pipe fittings are on at Home Depot.
As an academic (philosopher) I can only share Dan's position. We have in common a field of study where everyone poses as an expert. The hours I spent reading the texts, mastering the different logics, understanding the fundamental theses of the different sciences (biology, physics, economics, etc.), understanding the arguments of my peers, all this is swept away by individuals who do not read, do not have the skills, do not have the time and resources to keep up to date with academic debates. This is why I subscribed to this channel. What interests me is not so much the content but how Dan tries to explain and popularize complex academic content.
Good! 👋
I find myself constantly arguing with people, and I’m relatively comfortable in my knowledge as a layperson… but even then, I know that my arguments jump around inconsistently because I don’t have the years of experience in channeling that knowledge and being able to cite where my information comes from.
@@jackaltwinky77 Part of academic work is teaching. This work allows one to channel one's knowledge and thus make it clearer.Try to teach what you know by asking your listeners to critique your proposals.
Dans efforts are to make the distinction between biblical data and Ecclesiastical Dogma! He is not trying to change anyones beliefs but to present logical objective data and debunk personal subjective interpretations that youtube creators post as factual when they are not...
The "bruh" probably couldnt pass high school math.
Dan, stop giving "those" people your time and energy
❤❤❤❤❤❤ thanks Dan!!!!!
Thanks Dan. Yes, this is in accord with the practice of the natural sciences too. Science doesn't claim to prove anything - accepting this simple fact would dramatically transform the debate between atheists and people with a faith belief.
I think sometimes the problems here are not to do with epistemology but rather emotional and psychological. Many of us seem terrified of living with what is essentially profound uncertainty about existential questions. Understandable for sure but we can, I believe, do better.
I think it's also useful to point out that the "heavens" is just the sky. In the bible, heaven isn't some alternate reality, and it's not outer space (which isn't mentioned in the bible). When god creates the heavens, this is the process of creating the crystal dome in a flat state and then "stretching out the sky" by forming it into a bubble shape that creates the "expanse" of an air bubble under the water. Thus, the sky is the dome up in the air where all the lights are hung (sun, moon, and stars) and the undescribed area above it where god dwells.
Side note, the Bible does depict the heavens as outer space as well. Recalling that the documents here range from a period of around a thousand years, the bronze age cosmology presented in the creation myth is from an earlier period. By the time you get to the gospels, Aristotelian cosmology has been fully adopted and is present throughout the ideas of the Jesus follower movement (the location of demons in the fiery realm below the moon etc.)
It's not outer space as we conceive of it today. But it was outer space for its time.
@maklelan I don't think you've correctly used the word consensus as it is defined in any dictionary I'm aware of. You have said at several points in this video that a consensus is the "majority belief" of scholars and that's definitely not the definition -- look it up. I was brought up to understand it meant unanimity but even that's not exactly right either. It is sort of the point when there is no longer any (serious?) disagreement. This may sound like a minor point, but there really is a big difference between "there is no disagreement among scholars on this issue" and"51% or more of scholars agree on this issue". An election may result in 50.5% of the people agreeing on one candidate, but that doesn't mean there aren't 49.5% who are super pissed and disagree vehemently with the outcome.
I suspect the OP's performance is just a distraction so people don't notice he doesn't have an actual point to make. As with so many in American Christian churches, its just performative, not substantative.
Oh my god! Are you ever going to enrage this guy, just by pointing out that his ability to understand the Bible is limited by his lack of knowledge of Hebrew and Greek and his unfamiliarity with decades of scholarship.
However, he does has nice taste in music, even if he can't balance it properly on his soundtrack.
How is it so hard to understand that the creation account of Genesis is God(s) bringing order to a chaotic universe and thus making it look like it does today? God(s) create stuff, move stuff around and transform stuff into other kinds of stuff. That's not super complicated to get.
Hey Dan. As a scholar of religion, do you have any scholarly work on the debates of Pelagius ? Why he was condemned as a heretic and if he was part of an earlier Christian tradition?
"Darth Plagueis was a Dark Lord of the Sith so powerful and so wise, he could use the Force to influence the midi-chlorians to create life. He had such a knowledge of the dark side, he could even keep the ones he cared about from dying."
I know you're talking about a different guy, but the names are similar so I'm leaving this here.
@@wrathofainz right he was the master to Darth Sirius and even no one knows if he actually achieved creating life. Since I don’t want to give any spoilers away, I’ll let you decide!
I can't answer. It's not my domain of expertise. I just want to give you an advice : read him. At least read his letter to Demetrias
Good video Dan Can we talk about the Nazarite vow that is being advertised?
"digital pats on the butt" 😂😂😂
Dan, do you have any thoughts on the hypothesis that Tehom refers not just to a primordial ocean, but a primordial god of the oceans vanquished by YHWH in an expression of the chaoskampf motif?
I mean... Who wouldn't trust a sweaty guy in a car's opinion over a guy in his study with his diplomas on his wall?
If it wasn't so performative and over-the-top theatrical, or even done in good faith like Doc points out, it would be a lot easier to engage with and take serious.
Got to stand out in the crowd to make it on tik tok or whatever I guess
Gotta make the $$$$
I feel like the core of his defense is, "but it wouldn't make sense if God began to create when there was already a chaotic unformed Earth." I have news for you, friend: the story doesn't make sense. It doesn't match reality because they didn't know what the reality was. What they wrote has logical problems. Welcome to the Bible.
Scholastic consensus vs denominational indoctrination.
How is the consensus of scholarship determined?
I think some of my brain cells just died listening to that content creator.
While Genesis 1 is written as if the Earth already existed before the creating, this is accurate, the actual text as it reads today, in the Maoretic, in the Septuagint, in the Samaritan, and in all versions of the current Hebrew phrasing make Gen 1:1 read "In the beginning God created the sky and the Earth". There is no ambiguity in what Gen 1:1 says. It is possible, perhaps likely, that it originally read "In the beginning of God's creation of the sky and the Earth...", but this requires a change to the verb "bara" (created) making it into "bro" "(the process of) creation". That change is absolutely required for the Hebrew to read as Dan says it should read. It requires a change in the pronunciation of the text. The word "bro" would be spelled the same as the word "bara", but pronounced differently. Rashi proposed this interpretation, and the change of "bara" to "bro", but it isn't as widely accepted as Dan claims, because it makes a hypothesis of textual corruption.
You are completely missing the point. The NARRATIVE does not allow, given the reading "In the Beginning God created...", that verse one was a/the creative ACT. It is a narrative INTRO using a Topic Fronted Prepositional Phrase to introduce HOW God created - Which begins in verse 3. Jeez!
Cocaine is a helluva drug ...
Hi Dan, have you done a reply in the video of Neale from Gnostic Informant?
I am new to your channel and you may have already addressed this but how does a non Jew deal with Jesus telling the apostles he came for the people of Israel only? A Samaritan woman pleaded for help and although he finally did help she was still looked down on.
Evangelical mind operation:
Academic consensus =/= Right
The Lord told me = Right
Wow I'd hate to see this "creator" tackle science: Most agreed upon theory=supports most of the evidence thus far, NOT "proven as right"
Unfortunately, Dan's probably given this dude enough ammo to straw man ad hominem "Oh I'm just too dumb to understand and don't belong to the Academy."
Kudos to Dan though for putting on the waders, grabbing a lantern and trudging under the bridge to reveal an actual troll.
The consensus is that terrorists flew planes into the World Trade Centre. Some, however, believe the planes were empty and radio controlled and that the occupants are hiding from their families. I go with the consensus every time.
Could someone clarify for me what Dan means by "universe?" Because I think of outer space, so then it's confusing to say that when God began to create the universe, the earth was already there (how could earth exist in a place that doesn't yet exist?) Does he mean that "the universe" is just everything on and within earth (sky, ocean, birds, plants, etc)?
Read the NRSVUE version of Genesis 1 online. Basically, God put all the stars in our own atmosphere exactly like glitterflakes in a snowglobe. The universe is just earth, and all the lights in the sky are directly in our sky.
@@VulcanLogic ok that makes sense, thanks
I support Dan, but his arguments in his support are rough.
"I dont say that the academic consensus is true. My evidence is that I have said multiple times that it is a laughable mischaracterization of me."
Isn't consensus different than the majority of scholars? A consensus is something like 98% argue X and 2% argue Y. No scholar can seriously aim to overturn the consensus in a field. That happens so rarely, like with an Einstein or a Chomsky, say. Because when we think about arguing against an established position, it's usually such a small thing that most scholars don't have an opinion on it.
I too am dum.
But I've been dumming wrong. Because I'm not getting pats on the butt.
Do I gotta be in a dum religion first?
Can I maybe get some pats on my butt ... here in this comments section?
Anyone? :)
digital pats on the butt hahaha
It seems there is not consensus on the meaning of "consensus"😢
I agree that Genesis 1v1-2 indicates that the "earth" pre-existed the creation of light. But this does not, therefore, mean it (the earth) was uncreated. It simply means the Scriptures do not record WHEN it was created. The Scriptures do not record the creation of angels and other spiritual beings - does this, therefore, mean that they were uncreated? I have never heard such a suggestion! Other Scriptures proclaim God to be the Creator of ALL THINGS - "ALL THINGS" - includes everything that is a "THING". Some "things" are not actually "things" - but the absence of some "thing". Darkness is not a "thing"; it is simply the absence of some thing - LIGHT. Therefore, I would suggest, God can not properly be said to have created "darkness".
Bro, seriously! The difference is whether god created the earth from nothing or from something - like an unformed mass of clay into a sculpture. You guys are completely missing the points here. And how many times do you not hear Dan when he says that you are assuming univocality. Gen.1:1 is not an ACT of creation its a statement about creation. The ACTs of creation take place in verses 3 and onward from a mass of material as stated in verse 2 where the earth was enveloped in amass of water. It was later caused to appear and to be formed. Jeez!
@@veridicusmaximus6010 I do understand what Dan is saying. That v2 describes the state of the earth prior to the creation of light....and I agree...for I myself made this observation and have mentioned it to others. BUT....and this is where I differ from Dan .... just because the earth (in whatever form) existed prior to the craetion of light, this does not mean that the earth itself was uncreated. Other Biblical passages declare that God created "all things" - a term which includes the earth.
@@banzakidimye348 Well, that is irrelevant since nothing in Genesis 1 or Genesis period tells us either way whether the earth was created from nothing or if it was created in that state of Chaos. What's the point? "All things" are vague by virtue of certain contextual and theological ideas at the time - all things could be all material things or a literary phrase that does not encompass literally everything just as when the woman at the well said that she met a man (Jesus) that told all things about her life - obviously that did not happen. Secondly, all things is not mentioned in Genesis 1 so your reference is what Dan would say as an assumption of unvocality. You can't do that without demonstrating such.
@@veridicusmaximus6010 Prior to Day ONE - the earth was "without form and void"; God created it "without form and void/empty" Genesis 1 records the process by which God then gave it "form" and how He then "filled" what was previously "void/empty" with life.
@@banzakidimye348 That's completely against the grammar, narrative context and purpose of HOLINESS that the writer emphasizes through separation of this chaos. God would never create chaos and emptiness - he conquers it and forms it for a purpose that is holy. And the writer would never separate this, as a creative act, from the days of creation if this was an ACT of his creation. Verse one is Topic Fronted Prepositional Phrase to a narrative story about God's creative acts starting in verse 3!
and isnt this idea of the earth existing but not Being anything yet, just similar to the philosophical idea of matter vs form ? where form describes the physical properties, but matter simply takes up space and just is? that's how i understood it but perhaps thats not fully correct, either way i'm not the expert lol so i wont pretend i am! apparently a foreign concept to ppl lol
The fact that one has to do a shytload of research to EVEN CONSIDER whether ANYTHING in the bible is reality, is proof that it is NOT.
Dan these unlearned people don’t know anything!
Mop-top is incoherent; can't even talk!
So water and earth existed before light existed?
Yes. It literally says "darkness covered the face of the deep" in Genesis 1:2.
I wonder if the content creator bothered to watch his before posting it.
I also found the piano music in the background annoying as hell.
Dan the man.
So, who is this guy? What’s his name and what’s the name of his channel? I’d like to see a few more examples of smugness and arrogance. 😊
"When God began to create the heavens and THE EARTH ..." I still don't get how "began to create the earth" means he didn't create the earth. It reads to me like when God starting making things, the earth's initial (= initially created) state was high entropy.
He did create the earth. The point is that he created it out of stuff that was already there. The argument here is against creation ex nihilo. There was, as far as Genesis is concerned, never a state of nothingness.
Exactly what state everything was in we can't know, as we only have one line to work with here and it start in media res. "The earth was welter and waste" can mean a lot of things. Maybe it was a loose accumulation of debris similar to a comet. Maybe it was a swirling mess of disorganized rock and dirt. Maybe it was a big wet ball of mud. It's impossible to say.
I suppose another way to think about it is conceptually. "When Bible god began to create [something you would recognize as] the earth..." He took the random assortment of Lego bricks and made a firetruck out of them, to borrow an analogy from a previous poster. Maybe that assortment was pieces of past creations. Maybe it was loose, individual bricks. It doesn't really matter except to say that they were already there and were repurposed to create the earth.
“The heavens and the earth” is treated as one conceptual item/package that refers to the universe as authors understood it at the time.
An example I love to use: When I began to create my peanut butter and jelly sandwich, the ingredients were disorganized and the kitchen was a mess.
Think of someone writing you a story about how they made a chair out of a pile of 2x4s and some plywood. The person starts like this: In HS I made a chair in wood-shop and I'll I had was a pile of 2x4s and plywood. And then he tells you how he did it over the course of the semester. When, in the narrative, did he make the chair? Was it at the first statement or subsequently?
Genesis 1:1 is a Topic Fronted Prepositional Phrase (it is also a dependent clause NOT an independent clause) - to a narrative story about how God created the Heavens-and-the-Earth (a summary phrase of all of that was created) during the following 7 days. It is saying that WHEN God created the heaven and the earth (verses 3 onward) the earth was... verse 2. So when God began to do this verse 2 was ALREADY in existence. Thus, creatio ex materia (creation from material) not creatio ex nihilo (creation from nothing).
I guess it is true that once you're indoctrinated into some lens by which to read something in English some people can't see past it!
@@veridicusmaximus6010 John 1 says nothing was made apart from the Word, that through him God made "all things" which of course includes the earth. So when people assume univocality, it's understandable they'll have trouble seeing how Gen 1 might have a different view (never mind that the respective authors would have conceived of "heavens" and "earth" differently).
My issue is linguistic, that "When God began to create ... the earth" literally says God actually created the earth. Thus the principal clause would by implication indicate its state at initial creation, not at preexistence. I see no indication from Dan's explanation that it says the earth was preexisting. Is there some nuance in the Hebrew that he failed to explain?
@@MusicalRaichu Yes, John is not Genesis - and many are assuming univocality. So at best they are suggesting that John contradicts Genesis or that John takes precedent over Genesis and Genesis must be interpreted in light of John - that's stupid and completely lacks any demonstration. Second, they also forget to consider that John borrows from middle Platonic philosophy about the LOGOS. The Logos was a created being.
As to verse one of Genesis - again is not a creative act but a statement summarizing what will be explicated in verse 3 and onward. This is a headline so to speak to a narrative story that sets the stage just prior to the creative acts in verses 3 and onward. It is a Topic Fronted prepositional Phrase. It is not saying that God created the heavens and the earth and then subsequently did further creation over 6 days. This is true whether it is a independent clause or a dependent clause. The word 'created' does not necessitate out of nothing. It has overlap with formed.
If your take was in view this initial creation would be part of the days. By not understanding the narrative and the grammar and the context (particularly verse 2) you are forcing it into something that makes no sense!
Dan I think all this social media is making you meaner. 😕 Yes these TikTok apologists are not technically competent in most of the disciplines you are, but this kind of smackdown is a turn-off to anyone who's not already on the same page as you.
oh no, not this guy again.
It really goes to show people that this contenet creator doesn't even take his own position seriously. Like dude, does this guy not see how he's making his own position into a tasteless "joke"? Idk man, that's what I'm getting from it. It would be one thing if he was doing this to like a flat earth theory (maybe he does I don't really know) but if he seriously holds a Christian position then it's just shameful in my opinion.
I don't see anything wrong with treating one's positions as frivolous. Sometimes, I just want to make a joke regardless of its contents. It's the form and presentation which I care about. Even the sacred can be profane if you want it to be.
The problem is that he's using this affectation in an effort to discredit someone but it is in fact he who has taken an incorrect position.
Put another way, it's okay to be goofy, it's even okay to use your goofiness in service of dunking on someone. But at least make an effort to be correct. Otherwise your position becomes an actual joke in that nobody should ever take it seriously regardless of the presentation.
@@rainbowkrampus It comes across as really condescending, like he's objectively wrong, that's whatever, people have the right to be wrong if they want to. I guess they even have the right to be condescending if I think about it. It's just like... When someone mixes the two it just really comes across as tasteless to me. I do see what you're saying and I also agree with most if not all of it as well.
@@MicaiahSnow Well yeah, the point is to be condescending. It's a rhetorical tactic meant to belittle. Like, when I do it, it's because I'm in conversation with some sort of neo-naz* or christofascist (or possibly just someone who is willfully misunderstanding me). My goal is to signal my utter contempt for the person and their ideas.
The distastefulness is all a matter of perspective. You and I are, broadly, on Dan's "side". Or at least, on the side of the ideas he communicates. And of course, being very rational and cool (and attractive to the types of partner we wish to be attractive too) we see the underlying irrationality in the arguments of the apologist and bristle a bit at the unearned condescension he is affecting.
But his audience is experiencing something similar. It is what it is. We're all dumb monkeys flinging poo at heart. It's good to keep high minded ideals. But rhetoric is about meeting your audience where they're at. Some audiences love the poo and I don't personally consider myself above wading in. But it's not for everyone and since you never know what rhetorical tactic will be effective until after the fact, I generally take a "fling it at a wall and whatever sticks, works" view on what "good rhetoric" looks like. So I like Dan's approach as much as the apologist's. Even if the apologist is in error.
Histrionics
This creator's affect is so insufferable.
Don't do this guy anymore. He's REALLY unpleasant to watch.
ex crack addict? Looked like this guy was melting down having to listen to Dan
Hey Dan, love you babe but you maybe better off just ignoring when people get rude with you like that. You seem kinda irritated and, of course, you have every right to be and I do like when you solidly dunk on someone, like you do. But, like, your energy seems a little off and.. I mean, his argument was so bad faith and hinged so firmly upon sarcasm that you genuinely just too good a dude to pollute your vibes with that kind of toxicity.
Just a thought, baby. You know better than me.
Dan you fell into the trap. Don't do that. Don't talk down to the audience. I know you didn't mean it but what came across is "I'm you are not a scholar so sit down and shut up you have nothing of value to add." That is a bad look and hands him a rhetorical victory.
Dan's not wrong. The people on the internet who say "do your own research" and come up with stuff like the content creator are completely unable to do so and need to be made aware of that. He's doing the world a service.
I frankly don't' care about that - I'm all for talking down to people particularly when you have already exhausted other avenues and know the hypocrisy of some of these turds. They need to be mocked and ridiculed into submission. It's alright Dan if you choose not too - I got your back --
@@VulcanLogic at no point did I say or even imply Dan was wrong. Please address what I actually said rather than make things up
The cringe is unbearable.
So it is okay for god to be located outside space and time but anything else cant possibly be? The earth already being there confounding this guy so much a) seems like and act and 1) seems like hes just fighting with dogma because it isn't inconsistent with anything churches teach only reality.
This bloke thinks he's being funny by pretending to be dumb on purpose.
He just wants to ride your coattails. the stupid looks acting method shows he is using someone elses words to contradict you. you are giving him his 15 minutes
Watching that content creator's videos is like watching an episode of Ahsoka
30 minutes of long pauses and crappy dialogue
Important missed point here by Dan. So it’s time again for let’s do this right.
The chaos is in the waters, not in the universe. The universe in this story does not exist because their concept of the sky does not exceed the firmament. In neareastern religion only the throne of El, An or whoever the high deity was exceeded the firmament. Since the firmament did not exist, then nor did the heavens.
First off what is this about, the is originally about the excession of Uruk over Eridu. Eridu was the swamp with Eridu in the swamp, it’s like a cradle of civilization. Uruk represents the aspiration to unite the various cradles so that it can reach up the Euphrates for those goods it needs to be a Bronze Age culture. Ubaid culture original harvested up the Tigris watershed. As the Uruk period began what we call the indoeuropeans settled into the Kura-Araxas basin and now free access to minerals is deprived.
So the old gods of Eridu, Mesopotamia can’t deal with sky sprites, water sprites, animal spirits and so the create a higher level of divine beings, noted by the rows of horns. This is why we don’t need to create a universe first. There is probably some historic memory from Ubaid 0 in which the swamp was formed by an oxbow of the Euphrates cut off in a flood, this left and Island.
The sky to them is light another kind of fluid held back by the firmament. This concepts of stations or houses where the moon and the sun rise a set from. These are places that only a few mystical people have seen.
So this idea in Genesis 1, or the framework is borrowed from Mesopotamian culture and is not framed in the 4th century or by Moses in Egypt, but in the 3rd to 4th Millenium BCE as various dynastic wannabe contenders rise up. Other components are borrowed, Nammu the mother of Enki (borrowed by Uruk to become the mother of the gods) easily (or mindlessly) conceived god but needs to be instructed by Enki how to make humans of clay. The Tahom much more resembles the substrate god of Eridu than Tiamat, the shape shifting tempest of the Enuma Elish.
What this tells us and W.G.Lambert spells this out is that there are many creation myths in Assyria and Babylon and the Enuma Elis and its NeoAssyrian counterpart are just the dynasty preferred creation story, even so some in the dynasty might not have believed these (i.e. Nabonidus wanted to go back to an Akkad and Sumer run by the old gods, and he went to western Arabia to figure all of this out).
Thus the little moral to the story is this. In the beginning was Ubaid 0, which was not that successful and culture focused on the success in Eridu. That success was linked to their natural gods, the waters. The true tempest was the Euphrates. But the copper age came and they lost access to their tradition mineral gathering areas. More cities came along, probably each city had foundation myths. But the power comes from cities that trade and gain wealth, build armies spread and conquer. In fact nearly all the stories we have come from the dynastic period, few from the Early dynastic period are written. Thus these cities are keeping these stories in private transmissions not dynastic transmission.
Then the Yehud enter captivity and are dispersed to the cities of Akkad and Sumer and they are hearing these stories, and a some point they return and digest these.
We have to hit the nail not the board, that simply makes racket. The Bible keeps pinging Mesopotamian stories and in particular the gods of Eridu, a city in never even mentions. It mentions Ur, 10 miles away. We can do better than the Bible, we can hit the nail on head.
Elements derived from Eridu’s mythology are found in Genesis 1, 2 in the flood myth (the waters beneath, Absu), the savior god (Enki), they are found in the story of Jonah (“I” + Abgul of heaven and earth), etc…. Why is the Bible constantly pinging Eridu, it’s mythology. Why is the Bible focused on a not so politically important city 2000 miles away as the foot walks. Why not focus on Egypt? Why is Abraham from Ur and Haran (Cities of Suen), why does Jonah need to go to Ninevah. Why do the mothers of the patriarchs insist their men select from Haran/Ur and not the Canaanites.
What we can see in Genesis is a fascination of Eastern culture, the depth of its history, the sophistication of its literature, the magnificence of its cities. This is why they are constructing their myth based on elements from eastern local traditions.
The final trivial point. The universe begins in nothing. As far as we can tell, and it’s not certain by any means, that space was in a highly disequilibrium state and inflated, at the end of inflation an unknown mechanism poured energy into the system. This process is not bounded, and we do not know the bounds of the universe, only that which we see, or the age. We only know the age and bounds of the visible universe, CMBR is that edge. There was no earth, no light, no heat everything was exotic.
So let me make this clear, the cosmology is off-limits, we cannot see it, we only see the light emitted by the lowest transition state of the hydrogen molecule during its formation (deionization). It will be billions of years before stable water and planets form. The early material epoch was characterized by hot gas, no stars, radiant heat but no light, the heat of the universe blocked star formation. The next epoch was characterized by cooling and short lived blue giants which began the formation of carbon, oxygen nitrogen. This caused another round of ionization. This led to the generation of stars with these elements complex molecules in space which ended in another round of star formation and the production of most of the heavy elements we see today. Earth comes late in the process, life even later and the biblical creatures very late. That universe is not in the Bible, no arguments about this, the biblical authors are ignorant of the expanse of the cosmos, it’s not in Mesopotamian, Greek, biblical, Egyptian. The universe that we understand is nowhere in any literature of the late classical period.
Dan is so so so profoundly unlikeable. It's unfortunate, because what he says (besides his insulting overuse of the word "laughably") is fascinating and poignant... but his delivery is dare I say it... laughably awful
The argument is pointless. One guy is talking about scholarship, the other is talking about dogma. Dan's reasoned arguments are no more pertinent to the other guy, than the other guy's dramatic confusion is to Dan.
Academia is under the thumb of the Church on what they can and cannot teach.
Ex corde Ecclesiae. vs PaRDeS Biblical exegesis: Peshat (literal), Remez (allegorical), Derash (comparative), and Sod (esoteric).
A bit condescending ngl.
Actually, your 2 main goals are to share the progressive academic consensus and to push what the progressive academicconsensusclaims. If you actually shared the whole of consensus, then people would put some weight into what you claim. But, since you never use any conservative academic scholars and only progressive academic scholars, your claims are moot. This is why you never have any videos of conservative academics or recommend any conservative academics as your resource.
The folks signing statements of faith and who would be fired for disagreeing with the dogma of their employers are not engaging in academics. There's no such thing as "conservative academics", because if you're coming in with a set of biases (movement conservatism), you cannot honestly engage in the scholarship.
@VulcanLogic And yet there are conservative and progressive academic scholars. So while your opinion might sound nice and warm, it doesn't match reality.
@@sbaker8971 Yes, there are conservative and progressive scholars. There's no conservative or progressive scholarship; there's just scholarship. Welcome to reality.
@VulcanLogic I'm very aware of this, hence my OP. Welcome to reading comprehension