That's their tactic. They want to present scholars as biased for their audience. Thats also why they always speak of them as "sceptics" or "atheists" etc.
@@samuelforce7883😂 you're just blind to Dan's Dogmastism of denying any Divine authority to the Bible and Judaism/ Christianity. I would say that's extrem biases: NOT some nebulous neutrality that doesn't exist!
@@samuelforce7883when is Dan NOT biased: he even stated in a post on one of his other videos he's out to prove the Bible has NO Divine authority and that is his Dogmatic bias !
I think some people feel like biblical criticism is an attack on their personal faith. I feel like that's an irrational position to take. Folks start getting all in their feelings and that muddies the waters. It makes it tough to have a factual and intellectual conversation
At the end of the day it indirectly is. I mean if you believe God is almighty, but then he loses to another god, its a big problem. If you believe God is all knowing, but then he doesn't know the hour, it's a problem. But it's the bibles fault and not the scholars fault. Scholars are only analysing the texts, the archeology etc, doing their job and present their scholarly work.
I was raised with the idea that the Bible is entirely inerrant. Any critical examination of the text was basically equated to attacking the belief. It runs dangerously deep when it’s a core belief.
@@Rhewinhave to agree with you there. I’m an atheist studying critical biblical theology, (for fun, and because of audhd) and the amount of temper tantrums I have witnessed both in a lecture hall and now remotely is staggering. I have got into the habit of literally having a bag of popcorn handy while watching near apocalyptic dummy spits and rages. It’s some of the best entertainment I’ve personally ever witnessed. Sometimes I like to add fuel to the fire by asking the person raging out to please calm down and that they are scaring me.
@azurejester1520 It is more than that. Since they identify themselves with that faith, it can feel to them as tho you are telling them they are not who they think they are.
Baby critical biblical scholar here, just lending my support to Dan, whose work has been critical to my understanding of scholarship . The text says what the text says, and Dan is correct. The use of ad hominems and misunderstanding of the Hebrew language, and lack of knowledge of scholarly consensus, is an instant loss of credibility
The thing I appreciate the most about your content is that you are reasoned, calm and never feel the need to attack the person. Such a refreshing approach to online discourse that I hope to emulate (but still falter from time to time.)
Um... his rhetorical goal of insisting that YHWH is never defeated is itself entirely defeated by Judges 1:19 where YHWH was with Judah but he could not drive out the inhabitants of the plain because they had chariots of iron. Apologists will usually quibble over who the pronoun is referring to when it says that they took the hill country, but it's kinda irrelevant because collectively - YHWH and Judah - could not take the plains because they were defeated, and there are no excuses or rhetorical sleight of hands used in the text to claim that it was in accordance with YHWH's will. It explicitly blames the loss on the enemy's superior equipment, and then moves onto discussing other conquests. He's trying to defend a universal claim, and universal claims only require a single exception to be proven false. That exception already exists so his rhetorical goal is moot.
That guy was so dishonest. The literal next verse after the one that says "He cannot deliver you from my hand", reads "...this city WILL not be given into the hand of the king of Assyria". He must have read that verse. If he read it and just completely misunderstood it - then he really should think twice before embarking on textual criticism, because it's clearly not his field.
Thisn s a useful heuristic for ferreting out bias: If one side needs their interpretation to be true no matter what, it creates tremendous incentives for that side to be disbonest with themselves to make the text confrom to their pre-established conclusion. If you aren't allowed to follow the evidence wherever it leads, it is going to make it harder for you to find the truth.
Theres another kings verse I can't remember exactly..but it's written exactly the way 2nd Kings 3 is written.. only difference being Yahweh won..and the general consensus was that Yaweh won ...so why can't people Just accept Yahweh got handled and defeated...
I remember Dan talking about that before, basically saying this was the exact same sitch, just reversed, so probably the same thing happened, just the Israelites lost this time, so they couldn't exactly cover it up, but just sped through the account with as little detail as possible to save face. He'll probably bring it up in Part 2 of this vid!
Also my yes was to the over-flated opinion as witnessed by my other posting. But a Master's degree in theology is not knowing Hebrew and Greek (most likely Latin) nor textual criticism of Biblical text. The only real degree that guy has is in Christian apologists.
You don't need credentials to debate. If it were that simple, Dan wouldn't have even engaged with him. This stuff is far from obvious, and it's a rather esoteric topic.
Dan, thanks again for making an important point about texts like the Bible: it's so easy for people to get misled. I have no knowledge of ancient Hebrew, Greek or other relevant languages, so I could easily be fooled into missing the author's intent by a translation that lost the original context. The work of scholars like yourself is very important to help us laypeople understand human history through the writings of antiquity.
It seems the more your beard grows, the less capable your accusers become :) Fun aside, I watched several videos of that content creator, and my impression is he is way to emotional about proving his point.. You see how he lightens up once he feel he catched you erring. This, to me, has nothing to do with scholarship.. The thing I love about your work is that you care above all about truth, and less about merely being more right about something than someone else. Still glad you respond to these kind of videos, because we can still learn a lot about it.
Yahwe lost and that's when Ashera went to Chemosh. It was a fair 1 vs 1 and Yhwh lost, Israel couldn't capture the capital city and Yhwh couldn't keep his promise that the Isrselites will take over the city.
Hey Dan. I've a question about your statement regarding the lack of conflict of Deutronomy 20 and Israel cutting down the trees (7:00). In the New Oxford Annotated Bible (NRSV) Fifth edition, the notes on 2 Kings 3:19 states that Elisha’s oracle about cutting down all trees contradicts the rules of warfare in Deut 20.19. But they state that this indicates that stories about Elijah and Elisha are not a part of Deutronomistic history. Would you clarify the
Can I ask ... Is there some original video where @DMC talks about the defeat of YHWH? I looked for the video, and I don't see it here. Is it only on TikTok? I don't have subscription to TikTok.
The problem in this debate between Dan and some random fool is basically ignored. AT BEST, the books of Kings is a late 7th century BCE text, at worst it was redacted and edited in the 3rd to 5th century BCE. This text is a product of the rose colored reform period rationalization of events that took place in the 9th century. And we have the Meshe Stele. "How Moab was oppressed by Omri King of Israel and his son as the result of the anger of the god Chemosh Mesha's victories over Omri's son (not named) and the men of Gad at Ataroth, Nebo and Jehaz His building projects, restoring the fortifications of his strong places and building a palace and reservoirs for water His wars against the Horonaim A now-lost conclusion in the destroyed final lines" Who is Gad, the people of Ba'al Gad lived that the base of Mt. Hermon, and were displaced to the east and then south by events in the Iron age. Who is Nebo, nebo is the vizier of Marduk, the god of Babylon, these people possibly represent a colony of Babylon. As we can see Israel is not alone in wanting to expand its territory. At the time Assyria was still rapidly growing and Babylon, at least for a brief period was a contender. There are lucrative trade routes at play here. If assyria blocks trade, people could still move across the black desert in winter to reach lucrative trade markets in mesopotamia. We have to remember that from the middle of the late bronze age collapse to the carving up of Israel, Syria (That is Damas, Aram) had plagued mesopotamia for almost 300 years as a source for desparate tribesmen. This was a major reason for the collapse of babylon. During the early 9th century Assyria began to reverse these gains and Syria's influence was weakening. And so people are challenging Syria, but at the same time cooperating with Syria to challenge Assyria. Why is all of this action focused eastward, one simple reason, trade. Who controls the connections with the Euphrates has the purse strings of the near east. And while you can go out into the black desert in winter, you still have to cut north toward the Euphrates, cutting across Arabia is not a task one wants to take on. But unfortunately thats were the warring states are battling out. "The early Neo-Assyrian kings were chiefly concerned with restoring Assyrian control over much of northern Mesopotamia and Syria, since significant portions of the preceding Middle Assyrian Empire had been lost. Under Ashurnasirpal II (r. 883-859 BC), Assyria once more became the dominant power of the Near East, ruling the north undisputed. " The Mesha Stele, also known as the Moabite Stone, is a stele dated around 840 BCE "Shalmaneser III (Šulmānu-ašarēdu, "the god Shulmanu is pre-eminent") was king of the Neo-Assyrian Empire from the death of his father Ashurnasirpal II in 859 BC to his own death in 824 BC." "His long reign was a constant series of campaigns against the eastern tribes, the Babylonians, the nations of Mesopotamia, Syria, as well as Kizzuwadna and Urartu." " In 853 BC, a coalition was formed by eleven states, mainly by Hadadezer, King of Aram-Damascus; Irhuleni, king of Hamath; Ahab, king of Northern Israel; Gindibu, king of the Arabs; and some other rulers who fought the Assyrian king at the Battle of Qarqar. The result of the battle was not decisive, and Shalmaneser III had to fight his enemies several times again in the coming years, which eventually resulted in the occupation of the Levant, Jordan, and the Syrian Desert by the Assyrian Empire." "In 851 BC, following a rebellion in Babylon, Shalmaneser led a campaign against Marduk-bēl-ušate, younger brother of the king, Marduk-zakir-shumi I, who was an ally of Shalmaneser. In the second year of the campaign, Marduk-bēl-ušate was forced to retreat and was killed. A record of these events was made on the Black Obelisk:" "In 841 BC, Shalmaneser campaigned against Hadadezer's successor Hazael, forcing him to take refuge within the walls of his capital. While Shalmaneser was unable to capture Damascus, he devastated its territory, and Jehu of Israel (whose ambassadors are represented on the Black Obelisk now in the British Museum), together with the Phoenician cities, prudently sent tribute to him in perhaps 841 BC." You can find additional material here. Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III of Nimrud.
I love these people's arrogances it is just...appalling. it is basically the equivalent of me because I've had a bunch of surgeries, telling a heart surgeon how to do his job. 😂
On a side note, they dont spend much time talking about it in this video, but I'm so tired of people saying Yahweh commands unjustifiably immoral actions during military incursions. Sure, there might've been genocide of women, children, non-combatants, and live stock. God might've also given permission for the soldiers to take young virgins as sexual slaves, but that is really merciful and good if you give me enough time to explain how. But you know what really shows God's infinite love and goodness? God would NEVER allow his soldiers to harm THE GOOD TREES. If that isn't divine ❤LOVE❤ I dont know what is! ... I really don't know what love is if I think those are the actions of an infinitely loving creator and not the vile justifications of a tribal wargod.
Don’t all these “creators” realize they are dealing with a transplanted text for which a lot of accommodations were made? Do they think the Tanakh was written in XX century English?
In fairness, a ton of the text is pretty comprehensible without needing to know the particulars of ancient Israelite colloquialisms or metaphors. Translators do a good job for the most part. It's understandable that the relatively high success rate of understanding from just reading an English translation coupled with a tradition of divine inspiration could lead one to assume that all you need to understand what's going on in these texts is a Bible and a prayer. But in this instance, I chalk it up more to dishonesty and tribalism rather than an honest mistake. Besides quote mining and actively ignoring the very next sentence which refutes his idea, he also deigns to besmirch the mighty Chemosh by implying that his imminence could not beat Bible god in a fight. Which is a silly notion, as I'm sure you'd agree.
@@rainbowkrampus I agree, at the end is simply yet another creator trying to validate a dogmatic view of the text being inspired by God and many other religious ideas., but sometimes it is like having an Astrophysicist (metaphorically Dan) explaining to an Astrologist, and the Astrologist arguing of why "Mercury retrograde" is science. Sigh.
You guys are arguing over Yhvh, meantime he was a nobody .... One question though, when the bible says that the old covenant has been replaced and falls away, that litterally means that the old covenant with Yhvh is NULL and VOID. Jesus clearly said that his father has different behaviour and expectations then Yhvh, read John 8:38-44 carefully. Yhvh was the Elohim for Israel (Deut 32:9, Joel 3:2), just as other regions/nations had their own Elhohims, there were 70 of them, and received permission to rule from the commander of the Elohim, nl. ElYon, in Deut 32:8. The old covenant is the basis for Judiasm, just like the new covenant is the basis for Christianity. Yhvh's laws, all 613 of them, was replaced AS A PACKAGE.(Heb 8:13) and therefore falls away. So why do you and some others combine Yhvh and Jesus from the two covenants in your message, as if the old is still valid for Christians? And why do you call Jhvh God, because he is not - that is a deception to the listeners. Doesn't the new covenant say clearly that the law given to man by Yhvh is a curse, and Jesus came to redeem man from the curse of Yhvh's law (Gal 3:13). For by the works of the law shall no man be justified(Gal 2:16, Acts 13:39). The letter kills, the spirit gives life (2 Corinthians 3:6). The power of sin comes from Yhvh's law. (1 Cor 15, Rom 8:2). For all the law is fullfiled in one word - LOVE (Gal 5:14). All things are lawful unto me(Gal 5:18), but I will not be brought under the power of any. (1 Cor 6:12). Jesus's purpose was to free people from the bond of Yhvh, and not to free people from a sinfull nature (Heb 8:13). Jesus therefore repeatedly said to His followers: Moses said this ... But I say that ... Thus Jesus clearly distanced himself from Yhvh again and again, see john 14:30. Another question, if I may?: Jesus made it very clear that Satan is the god of this world. Satan himself confirmed that he has got worldly authority (Mat 4/Luk 4:5) and can give that to whom ever he pleases. Yet Psa 82:8 says that Yhvh has got worldly authority.... Clearly two entities can not each rule all nations! Is that why Yhvh introduced the law, so that man can be accused? In the new testament Jesus said that NO-ONE has ever seen his Father, while Yhvh has been seen FACE-TO-FACE by many, eg. Moses (Exo 33:11, Deut 34:10), Abraham (Gen 18), etc. God is spirit(John 4:24) while this Yhvh character is a physical draconian (Exo 15:8, Deut 32:22, 2 Sam 22:9,16, Psalm 18:8-15, Numbers 11:01, John 8:44, Rev 12:9, etc.). Yhvh conspires against man (1 Kings 22:20) and defiles man with unclean spirits (1 Kings 22:23, 1 Sam 19:9) while Jesus cast out unclean spirits (Mat 8:16) and gave his appostels authority to do the same (Mat 10:1, Luk 9:1, Mark 6:7). Yhvh even claimed to be the one and only saviour ... (Isa 43:11), which is obviously not true. Jesus therefore gave his live as ransom (Mat 20:28) to justify many (Isa 53:11), and Yhvh ENJOYED chrushing Jesus.(Isa 53:10). Also see youtube video: ruclips.net/video/pjiK9912z3U/видео.html and also see ruclips.net/video/jm_-BPFVIgc/видео.html and also ruclips.net/user/shortsCD0hAKO1bro and also ruclips.net/video/t_nDUZP1E-w/видео.html
They are not so much arguing about God but the wroting of the scriptures and what it says. Understanding such things is intetesting and important if we want to find out about how things were and such like. The bible is one of the greatest books in history, in terms of circulation. As with all books we eant to understand it accurately.
Why is this written? Deuteronomy 2:9 Then the LORD said to me, “Do not harass the Moabites or provoke them to war, for I will not give you any of their land, because I have given Ar to the descendants of Lot as their possession.”
Jehovah was in fact defeated, Jehovah told them starting from verse 15-22 of the chapter they would be victorious. They were not victorious, they retreated. Jehovah's army also could not defeat the Canaanite army in Judges 1: because they had chariots of iron. Judges 1: 19 So the Lord was with Judah. And they drove out the mountaineers, but they could not drive out the inhabitants of the lowland, because they had chariots of iron.
Calling you "Dogmatic Dan," when all your work is against dogma (something this guy probably knows), suggests that he's trying to insult you. I think he's a little butt-hurt. And that negatively affects my view of him.
Gentlemen. No earthly God (deamon) has ever defeated Yahweh. Yahweh can not be beaten. That is heresy. I appreciate the extolling your degrees, yet the proposition is still false.
"And there was great wrath upon Israel, and they withdrew from him and returned to the land." Rashi explains: "For their iniquities were remembered, that they too worship pagan deities and are not worthy of miracles."
2 kings 3 26 When the king of Moab saw that the battle had gone against him, he took with him seven hundred swordsmen to break through to the king of Edom, *but they failed* 27 Then he took his firstborn son, who was to succeed him as king, and *offered him as a sacrifice* on the city wall. *The fury against Israel was great; they withdrew and returned to their own land.* Yhwh also made a false promise: 2 kings 3 18 *he will also deliver Moab into your hands.*19 *You will overthrow every fortified city and every major town. You will cut down every good tree, stop up all the springs, and ruin every good field with stones.* Chemosh>Yhwh
I find Dan having a PhD hilarious in a Religious studies program. Did Dan NOT read the full Chapter 3 ??? Obviously all the ignorant comments reflect they haven't read 2 Kings 3: 1-27 either! First : verses 1-3 tell us the King of Israel is sinning against YHWH as his Father Ahab did just not as great. Second : The Prophet of YHWH: Elisha said what do i have to do with U king of Israel? Both elements Dan just leaves out of his evaluation of what happened in verse 25. Third : the rath only came against Israel because they were not obeying YHWH: Judah who was and Edom finished the Job of defeating Moab. 3 Kings went in and only 1 left early because of their Sinfulness that YHWH allowed to come against them specifically: SO NO YHWH was NOT Defeated. But YHWH did Allow a Demonic/ pagan god 's Spirit to come against the Northern kingdom of Israel. It says nothing happened to Judah and Edom. This whole story points to God only rewarding his True followers: NOT when Israel was following evil kings . There R many cycles of God rewarding Good Kings and his people and bringing judgment on Evil Kings and his people in the Combined Kingdom and the separated kingdoms of this story! God didn't need Israel to stay as he didn't need all of Gideon's army either: so he made it smaller so they couldn't boast and they Defeated the Midianites and the Amalekites. What there R still Amalekites around? Because they weren't all killed as God said to do in Deuteronomy 25:17-19. It obviously was self- defense NOT Genocide: seems familiar since October 7th.
question why are we watching two white people argue about a Jewish god???????? I'm going to ask this question until someone answers it. ???????????????????????????????????????
LOL, this hilarious dogmatist calling Dan, "Dogmatic Dan," is the richest thing I've heard this year. Great way to start 2024! Pure gold.
Exactly. He's convinced of this because of his religion while Dan is much less biased. He wants the truth
That's their tactic. They want to present scholars as biased for their audience. Thats also why they always speak of them as "sceptics" or "atheists" etc.
Indeed; anyone confident in their view can express it without resorting to anything that looks like putting down someone’s character
@@samuelforce7883😂 you're just blind to Dan's Dogmastism of denying any Divine authority to the Bible and Judaism/ Christianity.
I would say that's extrem biases: NOT some nebulous neutrality that doesn't exist!
@@samuelforce7883when is Dan NOT biased: he even stated in a post on one of his other videos he's out to prove the Bible has NO Divine authority and that is his Dogmatic bias !
It must be so nice when somebody calls you a bunch of names and then you get to be right. Like, what a great feeling
Every day Dan shows why that award he received for public education is 100% deserved.
Yes, every single day. His channel deserves to grow, along with his other pursuits. I hope he is greatly rewarded.
I think some people feel like biblical criticism is an attack on their personal faith. I feel like that's an irrational position to take. Folks start getting all in their feelings and that muddies the waters. It makes it tough to have a factual and intellectual conversation
At the end of the day it indirectly is. I mean if you believe God is almighty, but then he loses to another god, its a big problem. If you believe God is all knowing, but then he doesn't know the hour, it's a problem. But it's the bibles fault and not the scholars fault. Scholars are only analysing the texts, the archeology etc, doing their job and present their scholarly work.
I was raised with the idea that the Bible is entirely inerrant. Any critical examination of the text was basically equated to attacking the belief. It runs dangerously deep when it’s a core belief.
@@MrMortal_Ra 👍👍👍
@@Rhewinhave to agree with you there. I’m an atheist studying critical biblical theology, (for fun, and because of audhd) and the amount of temper tantrums I have witnessed both in a lecture hall and now remotely is staggering. I have got into the habit of literally having a bag of popcorn handy while watching near apocalyptic dummy spits and rages. It’s some of the best entertainment I’ve personally ever witnessed. Sometimes I like to add fuel to the fire by asking the person raging out to please calm down and that they are scaring me.
@azurejester1520 It is more than that. Since they identify themselves with that faith, it can feel to them as tho you are telling them they are not who they think they are.
Baby critical biblical scholar here, just lending my support to Dan, whose work has been critical to my understanding of scholarship . The text says what the text says, and Dan is correct. The use of ad hominems and misunderstanding of the Hebrew language, and lack of knowledge of scholarly consensus, is an instant loss of credibility
The thing I appreciate the most about your content is that you are reasoned, calm and never feel the need to attack the person. Such a refreshing approach to online discourse that I hope to emulate (but still falter from time to time.)
You know what Dan wants? Dan wants people to stop strawmanning his arguments and respond to them with intellectual honesty.
"Intellectual honesty" doesn't exit to dogmatists, one of which is that content creator.
Um... his rhetorical goal of insisting that YHWH is never defeated is itself entirely defeated by Judges 1:19 where YHWH was with Judah but he could not drive out the inhabitants of the plain because they had chariots of iron. Apologists will usually quibble over who the pronoun is referring to when it says that they took the hill country, but it's kinda irrelevant because collectively - YHWH and Judah - could not take the plains because they were defeated, and there are no excuses or rhetorical sleight of hands used in the text to claim that it was in accordance with YHWH's will. It explicitly blames the loss on the enemy's superior equipment, and then moves onto discussing other conquests.
He's trying to defend a universal claim, and universal claims only require a single exception to be proven false. That exception already exists so his rhetorical goal is moot.
Lord we thank thee for Beard coming back & rejoice in it's gradual appearance, praying to see it in all it's glory by Spring. Ahhhhh-Mennnnnnnn
Haha
Dan has done good works in the eyes of Chemosh who has blessed him with the return of his beard after the wicked Bible god absconded with it.
Actually, I prefer him sans beard. These comments, however, give me a laugh.
Only thing Dan is dogmatic about is his data. 🤣
Yes!
That guy was so dishonest. The literal next verse after the one that says "He cannot deliver you from my hand", reads "...this city WILL not be given into the hand of the king of Assyria".
He must have read that verse. If he read it and just completely misunderstood it - then he really should think twice before embarking on textual criticism, because it's clearly not his field.
If ur talking about dan then ur just biased😂
@@Gaming_God990Context should let you know that he's not talking about Dan
U sure u are right cause im sure dan mclellan will debunk ur claim
@@Gaming_God990
he's right. It's pretty obvious I was referring to the guy who made the claim, not Dan, who refuted him with scholarship.
Dude reads with quote mining set to maximum power.
I admit it. My favorite Dan McClellan videos are the ones wherein he ... *ahem* ... "responds" ... to someone who has accused him of being wrong.
Well argued Dan
This is the kinda guy that sends the Lockpicking Láwyer a lock and says he’ll never be able to open it and then it’s a 1:48 video
Thisn s a useful heuristic for ferreting out bias: If one side needs their interpretation to be true no matter what, it creates tremendous incentives for that side to be disbonest with themselves to make the text confrom to their pre-established conclusion. If you aren't allowed to follow the evidence wherever it leads, it is going to make it harder for you to find the truth.
Yahweh got his head handed to him. Total butt kicking. It was like Georgia vs Florida State. If you took Yahweh +59, you LOST!!!
Yep. Literally sacrificing the crown prince was a real Hail Mary play.
Chemosh for the win!
Given the marital practices of the time and place, I'm sure another son was readily available.
‘Dogmatic Dan’, more like ‘Dan The Cook’!! Cook Dan cook!!🔥🔥
Awesome! Another response to that "Inphilosophersgarb" guy.
He was so happy at 3:12 , just before being destroyed 😂
Apparantly, to the fundamentalist/dogmatic, actually reading and understanding what their book says is equivalent to heresey.
This is right up there with arguing which pokemon would definitely win a battle. Fictional characters all.
“Dogmatic Dan?” Sounds like the pot is calling a cup black.
Theres another kings verse I can't remember exactly..but it's written exactly the way 2nd Kings 3 is written.. only difference being Yahweh won..and the general consensus was that Yaweh won ...so why can't people Just accept Yahweh got handled and defeated...
I remember Dan talking about that before, basically saying this was the exact same sitch, just reversed, so probably the same thing happened, just the Israelites lost this time, so they couldn't exactly cover it up, but just sped through the account with as little detail as possible to save face. He'll probably bring it up in Part 2 of this vid!
It certainly appears that this creator doesn't know the difference between data and dogma..
It's crazy how people believe they can simply read the English and argue what the Bible means. Wildly ignorant.
Does this guy actually have the credentials to debate a scholar or is he just another RUclips preacher with an over-inflated opinion of himself?
Yes
He claims he has a Master's in theology or whatever, but that doesn't mean no nothing.
@@jackcimino8822 at the McDonald's University. 🤣
Also my yes was to the over-flated opinion as witnessed by my other posting. But a Master's degree in theology is not knowing Hebrew and Greek (most likely Latin) nor textual criticism of Biblical text. The only real degree that guy has is in Christian apologists.
You don't need credentials to debate. If it were that simple, Dan wouldn't have even engaged with him. This stuff is far from obvious, and it's a rather esoteric topic.
Dan, thanks again for making an important point about texts like the Bible: it's so easy for people to get misled. I have no knowledge of ancient Hebrew, Greek or other relevant languages, so I could easily be fooled into missing the author's intent by a translation that lost the original context. The work of scholars like yourself is very important to help us laypeople understand human history through the writings of antiquity.
I just had an argument about this an hour ago.
Everytime i see the name "Chemosh" i cant help but think of the DC villain "Chemo"!😅
God has been getting his ass kick the whole entire Bible
It seems the more your beard grows, the less capable your accusers become :)
Fun aside, I watched several videos of that content creator, and my impression is he is way to emotional about proving his point.. You see how he lightens up once he feel he catched you erring. This, to me, has nothing to do with scholarship.. The thing I love about your work is that you care above all about truth, and less about merely being more right about something than someone else.
Still glad you respond to these kind of videos, because we can still learn a lot about it.
Yahwe lost and that's when Ashera went to Chemosh. It was a fair 1 vs 1 and Yhwh lost, Israel couldn't capture the capital city and Yhwh couldn't keep his promise that the Isrselites will take over the city.
Hey Dan. I've a question about your statement regarding the lack of conflict of Deutronomy 20 and Israel cutting down the trees (7:00). In the New Oxford Annotated Bible (NRSV) Fifth edition, the notes on 2 Kings 3:19 states that Elisha’s oracle about cutting down all trees contradicts the rules of warfare in Deut 20.19. But they state that this indicates that stories about Elijah and Elisha are not a part of Deutronomistic history. Would you clarify the
Can I ask ... Is there some original video where @DMC talks about the defeat of YHWH? I looked for the video, and I don't see it here. Is it only on TikTok? I don't have subscription to TikTok.
Intersting! Non existent entities can do so much make believe
How dare you question the mighty Chemosh?
The problem in this debate between Dan and some random fool is basically ignored. AT BEST, the books of Kings is a late 7th century BCE text, at worst it was redacted and edited in the 3rd to 5th century BCE. This text is a product of the rose colored reform period rationalization of events that took place in the 9th century. And we have the Meshe Stele.
"How Moab was oppressed by Omri King of Israel and his son as the result of the anger of the god Chemosh
Mesha's victories over Omri's son (not named) and the men of Gad at Ataroth, Nebo and Jehaz
His building projects, restoring the fortifications of his strong places and building a palace and reservoirs for water
His wars against the Horonaim
A now-lost conclusion in the destroyed final lines"
Who is Gad, the people of Ba'al Gad lived that the base of Mt. Hermon, and were displaced to the east and then south by events in the Iron age.
Who is Nebo, nebo is the vizier of Marduk, the god of Babylon, these people possibly represent a colony of Babylon. As we can see Israel is not alone in wanting to expand its territory. At the time Assyria was still rapidly growing and Babylon, at least for a brief period was a contender. There are lucrative trade routes at play here. If assyria blocks trade, people could still move across the black desert in winter to reach lucrative trade markets in mesopotamia.
We have to remember that from the middle of the late bronze age collapse to the carving up of Israel, Syria (That is Damas, Aram) had plagued mesopotamia for almost 300 years as a source for desparate tribesmen. This was a major reason for the collapse of babylon. During the early 9th century Assyria began to reverse these gains and Syria's influence was weakening. And so people are challenging Syria, but at the same time cooperating with Syria to challenge Assyria. Why is all of this action focused eastward, one simple reason, trade. Who controls the connections with the Euphrates has the purse strings of the near east. And while you can go out into the black desert in winter, you still have to cut north toward the Euphrates, cutting across Arabia is not a task one wants to take on. But unfortunately thats were the warring states are battling out.
"The early Neo-Assyrian kings were chiefly concerned with restoring Assyrian control over much of northern Mesopotamia and Syria, since significant portions of the preceding Middle Assyrian Empire had been lost. Under Ashurnasirpal II (r. 883-859 BC), Assyria once more became the dominant power of the Near East, ruling the north undisputed. "
The Mesha Stele, also known as the Moabite Stone, is a stele dated around 840 BCE
"Shalmaneser III (Šulmānu-ašarēdu, "the god Shulmanu is pre-eminent") was king of the Neo-Assyrian Empire from the death of his father Ashurnasirpal II in 859 BC to his own death in 824 BC."
"His long reign was a constant series of campaigns against the eastern tribes, the Babylonians, the nations of Mesopotamia, Syria, as well as Kizzuwadna and Urartu."
" In 853 BC, a coalition was formed by eleven states, mainly by Hadadezer, King of Aram-Damascus; Irhuleni, king of Hamath; Ahab, king of Northern Israel; Gindibu, king of the Arabs; and some other rulers who fought the Assyrian king at the Battle of Qarqar. The result of the battle was not decisive, and Shalmaneser III had to fight his enemies several times again in the coming years, which eventually resulted in the occupation of the Levant, Jordan, and the Syrian Desert by the Assyrian Empire."
"In 851 BC, following a rebellion in Babylon, Shalmaneser led a campaign against Marduk-bēl-ušate, younger brother of the king, Marduk-zakir-shumi I, who was an ally of Shalmaneser. In the second year of the campaign, Marduk-bēl-ušate was forced to retreat and was killed. A record of these events was made on the Black Obelisk:"
"In 841 BC, Shalmaneser campaigned against Hadadezer's successor Hazael, forcing him to take refuge within the walls of his capital. While Shalmaneser was unable to capture Damascus, he devastated its territory, and Jehu of Israel (whose ambassadors are represented on the Black Obelisk now in the British Museum), together with the Phoenician cities, prudently sent tribute to him in perhaps 841 BC."
You can find additional material here.
Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III of Nimrud.
I love these people's arrogances it is just...appalling. it is basically the equivalent of me because I've had a bunch of surgeries, telling a heart surgeon how to do his job. 😂
On a side note, they dont spend much time talking about it in this video, but I'm so tired of people saying Yahweh commands unjustifiably immoral actions during military incursions. Sure, there might've been genocide of women, children, non-combatants, and live stock. God might've also given permission for the soldiers to take young virgins as sexual slaves, but that is really merciful and good if you give me enough time to explain how. But you know what really shows God's infinite love and goodness? God would NEVER allow his soldiers to harm THE GOOD TREES. If that isn't divine ❤LOVE❤ I dont know what is!
... I really don't know what love is if I think those are the actions of an infinitely loving creator and not the vile justifications of a tribal wargod.
Don’t all these “creators” realize they are dealing with a transplanted text for which a lot of accommodations were made? Do they think the Tanakh was written in XX century English?
In fairness, a ton of the text is pretty comprehensible without needing to know the particulars of ancient Israelite colloquialisms or metaphors. Translators do a good job for the most part. It's understandable that the relatively high success rate of understanding from just reading an English translation coupled with a tradition of divine inspiration could lead one to assume that all you need to understand what's going on in these texts is a Bible and a prayer.
But in this instance, I chalk it up more to dishonesty and tribalism rather than an honest mistake.
Besides quote mining and actively ignoring the very next sentence which refutes his idea, he also deigns to besmirch the mighty Chemosh by implying that his imminence could not beat Bible god in a fight. Which is a silly notion, as I'm sure you'd agree.
@@rainbowkrampus I agree, at the end is simply yet another creator trying to validate a dogmatic view of the text being inspired by God and many other religious ideas., but sometimes it is like having an Astrophysicist (metaphorically Dan) explaining to an Astrologist, and the Astrologist arguing of why "Mercury retrograde" is science. Sigh.
I absolutely love this creator but he should know by now,
Ahhh the smugness will never end with dan's detractors.
🤘
Did I detect a twinkle in the "All right, let's see it."?
My only dogma is "data over dogma."
You guys are arguing over Yhvh, meantime he was a nobody ....
One question though, when the bible says that the old covenant has been replaced and falls away, that litterally means that the old covenant with Yhvh is NULL and VOID. Jesus clearly said that his father has different behaviour and expectations then Yhvh, read John 8:38-44 carefully.
Yhvh was the Elohim for Israel (Deut 32:9, Joel 3:2), just as other regions/nations had their own Elhohims, there were 70 of them, and received permission to rule from the commander of the Elohim, nl. ElYon, in Deut 32:8. The old covenant is the basis for Judiasm, just like the new covenant is the basis for Christianity. Yhvh's laws, all 613 of them, was replaced AS A PACKAGE.(Heb 8:13) and therefore falls away.
So why do you and some others combine Yhvh and Jesus from the two covenants in your message, as if the old is still valid for Christians? And why do you call Jhvh God, because he is not - that is a deception to the listeners.
Doesn't the new covenant say clearly that the law given to man by Yhvh is a curse, and Jesus came to redeem man from the curse of Yhvh's law (Gal 3:13). For by the works of the law shall no man be justified(Gal 2:16, Acts 13:39). The letter kills, the spirit gives life (2 Corinthians 3:6). The power of sin comes from Yhvh's law. (1 Cor 15, Rom 8:2).
For all the law is fullfiled in one word - LOVE (Gal 5:14). All things are lawful unto me(Gal 5:18), but I will not be brought under the power of any. (1 Cor 6:12).
Jesus's purpose was to free people from the bond of Yhvh, and not to free people from a sinfull nature (Heb 8:13). Jesus therefore repeatedly said to His followers: Moses said this ... But I say that ... Thus Jesus clearly distanced himself from Yhvh again and again, see john 14:30.
Another question, if I may?: Jesus made it very clear that Satan is the god of this world. Satan himself confirmed that he has got worldly authority (Mat 4/Luk 4:5) and can give that to whom ever he pleases. Yet Psa 82:8 says that Yhvh has got worldly authority.... Clearly two entities can not each rule all nations! Is that why Yhvh introduced the law, so that man can be accused?
In the new testament Jesus said that NO-ONE has ever seen his Father, while Yhvh has been seen FACE-TO-FACE by many, eg. Moses (Exo 33:11, Deut 34:10), Abraham (Gen 18), etc.
God is spirit(John 4:24) while this Yhvh character is a physical draconian (Exo 15:8, Deut 32:22, 2 Sam 22:9,16, Psalm 18:8-15, Numbers 11:01, John 8:44, Rev 12:9, etc.).
Yhvh conspires against man (1 Kings 22:20) and defiles man with unclean spirits (1 Kings 22:23, 1 Sam 19:9) while Jesus cast out unclean spirits (Mat 8:16) and gave his appostels authority to do the same (Mat 10:1, Luk 9:1, Mark 6:7).
Yhvh even claimed to be the one and only saviour ... (Isa 43:11), which is obviously not true. Jesus therefore gave his live as ransom (Mat 20:28) to justify many (Isa 53:11), and Yhvh ENJOYED chrushing Jesus.(Isa 53:10).
Also see youtube video: ruclips.net/video/pjiK9912z3U/видео.html
and also see ruclips.net/video/jm_-BPFVIgc/видео.html
and also ruclips.net/user/shortsCD0hAKO1bro
and also ruclips.net/video/t_nDUZP1E-w/видео.html
Oh boy. This guy is something else.... He's a glutton for punishment.
They are not so much arguing about God but the wroting of the scriptures and what it says. Understanding such things is intetesting and important if we want to find out about how things were and such like. The bible is one of the greatest books in history, in terms of circulation. As with all books we eant to understand it accurately.
Why is this written? Deuteronomy 2:9 Then the LORD said to me, “Do not harass the Moabites or provoke them to war, for I will not give you any of their land, because I have given Ar to the descendants of Lot as their possession.”
It's a false prophecy and contradiction
Jehovah was in fact defeated, Jehovah told them starting from verse 15-22 of the chapter they would be victorious. They were not victorious, they retreated. Jehovah's army also could not defeat the Canaanite army in Judges 1: because they had chariots of iron. Judges 1: 19 So the Lord was with Judah. And they drove out the mountaineers, but they could not drive out the inhabitants of the lowland, because they had chariots of iron.
This shit feels like a flat earther trying to teach a physicist.
Cannot avoid to notice the distinct difference in pronouncing JHWH...
Chemosh: 1
Bible god: 0
The hubris of these guys who think they know more than scholars. 😂
Lol people still think this yahweh character is actually God.😅😅😅😅😅
Calling you "Dogmatic Dan," when all your work is against dogma (something this guy probably knows), suggests that he's trying to insult you. I think he's a little butt-hurt.
And that negatively affects my view of him.
Child sacrifice works, according to the passage. 🤢
Gentlemen. No earthly God (deamon) has ever defeated Yahweh. Yahweh can not be beaten. That is heresy.
I appreciate the extolling your degrees, yet the proposition is still false.
Keep living in denial 😂
"And there was great wrath upon Israel, and they withdrew from him and returned to the land." Rashi explains: "For their iniquities were remembered, that they too worship pagan deities and are not worthy of miracles."
2 kings 3 26 When the king of Moab saw that the battle had gone against him, he took with him seven hundred swordsmen to break through to the king of Edom, *but they failed*
27 Then he took his firstborn son, who was to succeed him as king, and *offered him as a sacrifice* on the city wall. *The fury against Israel was great; they withdrew and returned to their own land.*
Yhwh also made a false promise:
2 kings 3 18 *he will also deliver Moab into your hands.*19
*You will overthrow every fortified city and every major town. You will cut down every good tree, stop up all the springs, and ruin every good field with stones.*
Chemosh>Yhwh
@@JopJio Israel not being worthy of miracles does not equal defeating the Master of the universe.
@@hrvatskinoahid1048 he couldnt keep his promise and made a false prophecy, so he was defeated
@@JopJio I prefer Rashi, thanks.
@@hrvatskinoahid1048 I prefer the text and the fact that Yhwh could not keep his promise
Krishna to brown for Europeans. jesus is Asian also.
Shame on you, Dogmatic Dan.
I can't watch anymore. He's so smug and so confidently wrong 🤢
I find Dan having a PhD hilarious in a Religious studies program.
Did Dan NOT read the full Chapter 3 ??? Obviously all the ignorant comments reflect they haven't read 2 Kings 3: 1-27 either!
First : verses 1-3 tell us the King of Israel is sinning against YHWH as his Father Ahab did just not as great.
Second : The Prophet of YHWH: Elisha said what do i have to do with U king of Israel?
Both elements Dan just leaves out of his evaluation of what happened in verse 25.
Third : the rath only came against Israel because they were not obeying YHWH: Judah who was and Edom finished the Job of defeating Moab.
3 Kings went in and only 1 left early because of their Sinfulness that YHWH allowed to come against them specifically: SO NO YHWH was NOT Defeated.
But YHWH did Allow a Demonic/ pagan god 's Spirit to come against the Northern kingdom of Israel.
It says nothing happened to Judah and Edom.
This whole story points to God only rewarding his True followers: NOT when Israel was following evil kings .
There R many cycles of God rewarding Good Kings and his people and bringing judgment on Evil Kings and his people in the Combined Kingdom and the separated kingdoms of this story!
God didn't need Israel to stay as he didn't need all of Gideon's army either: so he made it smaller so they couldn't boast and they Defeated the Midianites and the Amalekites.
What there R still Amalekites around? Because they weren't all killed as God said to do in Deuteronomy 25:17-19.
It obviously was self- defense NOT Genocide: seems familiar since October 7th.
because only children that read comics would defend religion.
question why are we watching two white people argue about a Jewish god???????? I'm going to ask this question until someone answers it. ???????????????????????????????????????
nerds have now stopped arguing about superman comics. now argue about the bible also a fake superman comic book.