Do modern Bibles remove important doctrine?

[@twinnish]

I appreciate when you are able to show physical things that are explanatory to your discussion of a subject. Sometimes I think that people cannot appreciate that “scholarly consensus” statement very well, but they can look at the manuscript and tell that you’re not full of it. Unfortunately, a lot of the people that are doing these videos have an inherent suspicion of anything that comes from academically minded people. Which is mind blowing honestly.

[@veggiet2009]

Me too! I had a pastor who would often talk about the Greek, but he would never show things like this

[@danielkover7157]

Coming from an evangelical protestant background, I'd say for many of them, it could be the very pervasive belief that the Devil-the "Father of Lies"-is looking for any way to deceive people. Since most people aren't critical scholars of the Bible or religion, they may be seeing an avenue through which their perceived enemy can deceive them and everyone else. I've a feeling it's similar with their distrust of science and the scientific community, as well.
They are suspicious, as you pointed out.
Now, that's from my upbringing in evangelical protestant circles. I can't speak for other Christian communities, but it wouldn't surprise me if they were having a similar reaction.

[@flowingafterglow629]

You gotta love the manuscript that literally has the extra word written in the margin.
Yeah, that's original.

[@MadHatter42]

I wonder if that was originally supposed to just be an extra-textual annotation that was later mistakenly included in the text itself.

[@MarcillaSmith]

It doesn't even make sense when "without cause" is added _except_ as a later addition to allow for exceptions. What I mean is that if we imagine that the original intent was to say that it is permissible to be angry as long as there is cause, then we have to ask ourselves, "to whom would this even be directed?" Are there people out there who feel anger and would say - even to themselves - that it is for no reason? The exception nullifies the rule.

[@flowingafterglow629]

@@MarcillaSmith For sure. I mean, one man's cause is another man's frivolousness, right? Does anyone really "get angry with another" for no reason at all? That's just bizarre as a suggestion.
"Why are you angry at your brother?"
"Oh, no reason."
This is apparently what the excusagist thinks is going on.

[@ronjones1414]

@MadHatter42 that was a correction to an error. There are lots of manuscripts from before the correction that includes the word. The scribe was trying fix a mistake.

[@JosephNobles]

@@MadHatter42 it could also be that another manuscript showed up years, decades, centuries later and a decision was made at the monastery that the new manuscript was the correct reading and their own copy needed to be amended. Very often, malice doesn't need to be attributed to changes in manuscripts like this. They are doing textual criticism too! But as Dan demonstrates, we have access to many other copies, and eike doesn't show up in earlier manuscripts at all, only later ones.

[@OppressorPants]

I think one of the best books I have read that made me realize how much scribes influenced the text was Misquoting Jesus. I read that book when I was at a low point in my faith after serving several years with a pastor who was very much believed in biblical literalism and inerrancy. After reading I felt like it was just confirmation that the feelings and cognitive dissonance I was having was not a lack of faith, but instead a reaction to basically waking up to the fact that I was being gaslit by "teachers" with agendas.

[@bitcoinweasel9274]

Misquoting Jesus is an excellent book. I'm glad it helped you out.

[@jessiesineath7702]

I haven’t read misquoting Jesus but am curious what faith you could have at all after reading it.

[@glowheat4469]

Yes, Misquoting Jesus is an excellent book. I only wish more Christians could or would talk about it. It's definitely a wake-up call.

[@SWatts529]

It seems to be a common misconception that newer versions of the Bible use previous versions as their source material with some edits thrown in by conspiring editors with an agenda. It might be useful to point out that newer versions actually use older manuscripts and source material, and are therefore more likely to be faithful to the original intent of the authors than versions like the KJV.

[@thomasdalton1508]

That's a fairly recent change, though. It did use to be the case that people writing new versions generally started from a recent version. The first English versions of the Bible, for example, were translated from Latin, not the original Greek. Only recently have people started going back to the original text (of course, early manuscripts like the Dead Sea Scrolls weren't available until recently).

[@seconduser1809]

Before I read some of Ehrman's popular works about manuscripts many years ago I was like this cowboy hat guy- I just thought there had always been just one set and that's that So dropping or adding words was just translators being sneaky. I didn't realize there were many variants that had to be decided upon before the translation process even began.

[@KaiHenningsen]

Even worse, many of them have only been discovered since the days of the KJV.

[@stephenlitten1789]

@@KaiHenningsen Or had access to. I mean, Protestant scholars are hardly likely to approach the Catholic church to compare manuscripts, and certainly not at the beginning of the 17th C

[@basilkearsley2657]

This is such an important video. It shows how the Bible has been corrupted to make it say what the preacher wants it to say

[@LukeDonahue]

Some preachers could be corrupted, but the Bible has not been. Even many hardened skeptics and critics of the Bible admit that the Bible has been transmitted over the centuries far more accurately than any other ancient document.

[@Midoran3500]

“Do not thump the Book of G’Quan” - G’Kar

[@lisaboban]

Thank you, brother. Came here to post the same quote!

[@jeremyneill227]

Stuff like this is so fascinating because you can see how eager people are to sort of wedge exceptions into the pacifist messages in the gospels. They want those exceptions because they are super into anger and violence and control and a lot of passages in the gospels really indicate a much different ethos.

[@Quirken]

I really love the emphasis you put on renegotiating and breaking down different priorities (e.g. "originally intended" vs "preferred interpretation").

[@GreaverBlade]

I appreciate your sharp pointing out of the negotiation with the text, but not actual condemnation.

[@QuinnPrice]

As a post-religion dude, I treat people as I would want to be treated. I do my best to love difficult people without harming me in the process, and peace is a priority. Simple is better, peeps.

[@DrPhilGoode]

I’m more concerned about this missing doctrine. If I am angry at someone, I need a reason to be angry at them?
I shouldn’t let my anger towards others flow unchecked unless I have a reason to be angry?
I always thought becoming violently enraged at others for no reason was the norm but I will live this new doctrine now.

[@badnewsBH]

I don't know why the OP insists that dishonesty is being perpetrated, when the new text *includes a footnote about those three words*. There's nothing hidden in there. Yeesh.

[@noracola5285]

"It's a cover up - they even admit it!" - Average fundamentalist "reasoning"

[@boboak9168]

02:01 kind of a coincidence, I learned to code on a C64 that was also from around 300 CE…

[@tbishop4961]

😂
10 PRINT "Hello World!"
20 GOTO 10

[@seconduser1809]

"I adore my 64, my Commodore 64. I write with it create with it, telecommunicate with it." (Old tv ad).

[@KaiHenningsen]

@@seconduser1809 Ah yes, the old programmable footstool, as we liked to call it in the original German. (That's actually true.)

[@digitaljanus]

Mine was a Commodore 128, so it only dated back to about 420 CE.

[@aaronpolichar7936]

I learned to code on a computer that was introduced before the VIC-20. I can't remember if that was before Jesus was crucified or after.

[@garrgravarr]

I will never understand these KJV puritans who apparently can't conceive that scholarship might have advanced a little in 400 years...

[@nerfzombie6242]

D'oh!! Oh, excuse me! For the KJV purists, "D'ohith!"

[@clayhamilton3551]

People thinking that the king James Bible is the original Bible and that everything else is translated from it never fails to make me laugh

[@georgevcelar]

Christianity, and in fact most if not all religions, have been changing doctrine to suit the fashion of the day.

[@xaayer]

"They've taken out important doctrine!"
Is your loyalty to doctrine or to an untampered and pure bible as close to what the authors put down as possible? Do you want doctrine or do you want truth?

[@dmckenzie9281]

I grew up in a fundamental baptist church that was KJV only and we heard stuff like this from the pulpit every Sunday. What does it say about a person that is looking for permission to be angry with a brother?

[@jamesjarvis3486]

So his contention is that the explanatory note that explains that the "omitted" word wasn't in the oldest manuscripts proves his interpretation is correct.

[@THEalfalfa1]

huh

[@ThatBernie]

Great video as always, although I'm somewhat concerned that the bit about negotiating the text, as much as I agree with your broader point, has the potential to dilute your message, especially when dealing with fundamentalist folks who have a literalist understanding of the Bible, and just an absolutist understanding of life in general with no room for nuance or shades of grey. I get that your point is that the text cannot speak for itself, even fundamentalists have to (re-)interpret it and even alter the text according to their own preferences, and that is certainly true, but I worry that folks like this are just looking for an excuse to dismiss all this as just some post-modern librul mumbo jumbo, when perhaps all it takes is to point out that it's a fact that the earliest manuscripts simply did not contain this word-like that's just a fact, point blank.

[@joshridinger3407]

fundamentalists don't actually have a literalist (historical-grammatical) understanding of the text at all, though. they twist themselves into pretzels all the time trying to harmonize, read inconvenient and uncomfortable passages metaphorically, etc. you can't even read the new testament literally without treating the old testament like a pile of fortune cookies and word salad (all those 'prophecies' supposedly fulfilled by jesus had nothing to do with jesus or don't even exist in the old testament text at all)

[@ThatBernie]

@@joshridinger3407 I mean, I don’t disagree with you about the fact that fundamentalists twist the text to suit their own preferences, but on the other hand they certainly *think* of themselves as taking a plain literalist reading and they also present themselves as such, and so I think certain rhetorical strategies-ones that cater to their desire for absolute certainty-are more likely to be successful than others

[@ThatBernie]

@@joshridinger3407 and your bit about the fortune cookies and word salad got a chuckle out of me, you hit the nail on the head lol

[@SweetKel]

Brilliant Dan. Thank you.

[@DingusNate]

Hey Dan. Want to start by saying I find your content very insightful and engaging. I’ll kind of put myself out here a bit (maybe this is just sort of a journal entry lol). I was raised in a pretty conservative Baptist home. However, in an attempt to be honest, I have gone through a “deconstruction” phase and, if pressed, I would identify as atheist. I just want to say I really don’t find a lot of the common atheist-type content of pointing out Biblical inconsistencies and perceived personal problems with the Bible and vilification of self-described Christians to be very satisfying at all. I admit that I still very much have a desire to engage with the text. I guess I’m at a point where I’m now trying to, to use a phrase you use commonly, “negotiate with the text” to figure out what it means (maybe just to me). I hope as I continue to view your content, I will develop a keener understanding of the Bible, its history, and the intent of the authors, even as a non-believer. Thank you.

[@OldMotherLogo]

You may want to check out Bart Ehrman, too. I think you will like him. Very kind, academic but accessible, dedicated to understanding the text, not what we try to superimpose on it.

[@darthbanana7]

Dan, as someone who usually disagrees with you and “hate watches” your videos, this one was great. God bless

[@andrebrown8969]

This is just one of the reasons why I do not mess with religion as a method for how I should live my life.

[@lawrencecarlson2425]

I guess God was not always with the scribes as each copy was made.

[@RosieRoserules]

Thanks to the RUclips algorithm they show me your stuff all day I just realized yesterday I wasn't even subscribed but its still been showing me your stuff on a daily basis isn't that great? I am subscribed now

[@scotthannan8669]

I think this guy forgot to read the rest of Matthew chapter 22, because Jesus is laying down a set of principles of behavior that is beyond what the law prescribed. True righteousness instead of just lawful goodness.
He’s also potentially misunderstanding what the word anger means there because he’s assuming that being angry with cause is something Jesus is cool with.
I think the bigger point would be that Jesus would probably understand people getting angry from time to time but the text suggest that you go and try to reconcile. If you have tried to reconcile and you still cannot, and you still hold onto your anger, it’s hurting you not the other person.
This guy is making the assumption that modern translations have a “everything is cool, nothing is wrong” attitude but in fact it sounds like the text is suggesting that we learn how to move past anger.
It sounds more like this guy is missing the point that Jesus is making

[@Bright_Sol]

Perhaps this is a new path taken by some Christians, that in the news recently, were questioning the "liberal" sermons of their church leaders, who then responded to their critics that these were the literal teachings of Jesus Christ.

[@JopJio]

Jerome: Some copies add here the words, without cause; but by the true reading the precept is made unconditional, *and anger altogether forbidden.* For when we are told to pray for them that persecute us, all occasion of anger is taken away. The words without cause then must be erased, for the wrath of man works not the righteousness of God

[@veggiet2009]

I wonder if with the advent of modern writing tools if the principle of 'lectio brevior' will gradually become less relevant, because the ability to delete, erase, and undo has become easier and easier over time. Starting with the invention of white out chemical and ending with full on digital media...

[@digitaljanus]

There is a high probability much of the documentation of our current era will not survive, if we don't support and fund or stop defunding the cultural institutions dedicated to its preservation. When such a large portion of our cultural output is governed by a handful of private sector corporate entities with no obligation or compulsion to preserve that output for the public good, its continued existence is always in doubt.

[@jackaltwinky77]

The same sentence can be read by 10 different people, and all 10 can take a different interpretation of what it means.
That’s the inherent bias we all bring to the table.
Even if we are able to perfectly preserve everything we have in written form, the languages we use will change.
And we don’t always explain the mundane things that a write assumes are part of everyday life, which means future generations will have to make guesses on what our words mean, and they’ll argue over it, like we do now.

[@BradyPostma]

A lot of digital media will be lost. Lots of old programs, billboard systems, and early websites already are lost. Just like early cinema is plagued by lost works.

[@probablynotmyname8521]

Mr cowboy hat is arguing that older maps are somehow better than new maps… forgetting of course that things generally get better as we move forward. Just like science we are better now at translation so we dont need to include the spackle and shine added by those in the past. Your 15th century map is no longer the best map we have…

[@kyrroti]

But newer maps change things. It’s probably because the mapmakers don’t want us knowing how the world looks

[@jeffmacdonald9863]

OTOH, he's also arguing that the one particular older map is better than the original map it was based on, since even older texts than the KJV don't have the phrase he relies on.

[@BrettParryTheCulturalMentor]

I got a sense pretty early that the reason he doesn't like the "newer" Live and Let live approach is that it restricts him from applying his hatred toward those that don't look, sound, speak, act or pray the way he does. There's no hate like Christian love when they want to make the bible confirm their own ignorance.

[@noracola5285]

Exactly. It's so transparent.

[@kentstallard6512]

This cowboy alfalfa male don't want no passive Christianity!
Ignorance combined with awful mythology. Yuck.

[@Cornelius135]

… why does he want Christians to be more mad? Like, just don’t be mad brother, even without the eike we’re still skirting real close to murder if what we think is a good “cause” isn’t actually good enough

[@stefanrusek2322]

Not to mention, that James clearly says the same thing, that Christians should not get angry.

[@olivermorin3303]

Hearing about lectio brevior for the first time makes me think of Animal Farm, how Napoleon reinterprets and even rewrites Old Major's revolutionary commandments into ineffectual finger-wagging.

[@BradyPostma]

And when he edits them, he always adds to them. Interesting!

[@olivermorin3303]

@@BradyPostma Yup, and when he's consolidated his control of the farm he immediately destroys almost the entire text because he never cared about the original message and only ever used it as a means of control.

[@Guishan_Lingyou]

It's interesting that the featured creator does not seem to know what the word "insert" means.

[@stephenlitten1789]

Glad I'm not the only one who spotted that

[@noracola5285]

His wife must be so happy

[@tbishop4961]

Do not hate your brother in your heart. Rebuke him, so you do not share in his guilt

[@billcook4768]

My theory - if a doctrine can be undermined by changing a word or two in translation - it isn’t an important doctrine.

[@clinchleatherwood1012]

He has no concern about what "some manuscripts insert" means....

[@Mr.PeabodyTheSkeptic]

Because a book renamed after a king-dictator would never knowingly obscure anything to benefit themselves? Both/All versions are fan fic.

[@KGchannel01]

He is accusing the modern Bible of being dishonest even as he reads its candid admission that some manuscripts say "without a cause."
It's telling that he prefers the Bible that doesn't inform him about important differences in the manuscripts!

[@benjaminlesue1372]

Brilliant reasoning, Dan!

[@KGchannel01]

Also, practically speaking, if inserting "without a cause" is right, it renders the verse almost meaningless; because almost nobody would feel they need to change or grow as a person.
People dont usually think they were angry for no reason, or "without a cause."
And even when they do lash out at an innocent party (because they woke up on the wrong side of the bed, or had a bad day at work), there is a tendency to do some post hoc rationalization rather than admit to misdirected hostility.
(Side note: I really disagree with the idea that we are culpable for our emotions alone; but I think it wise to try to be introspective, and try cope with them in healthier, generally more peaceful ways. Yet, confrontations are unavoidable and even healthy when handled with care.)

[@AlistairZands]

Even if it it was originally supposed to include "without a cause," that wouldn't mean it is encouraging you to be angry if you do have a cause (like the original video seems to imply). Especially when it's a quote as the guy who is credited with the phrase "turn the other cheek."
Besides, "without a cause" is functionally purposeless because most people are never angry without some reason for it. Sure, the cause may be petty or mean-spirited but it is a reason nonetheless. Granted, I was never taught that God is against being angry ever, but rather it's about how you handle that anger (which to be fair is probably a renegotiation on my part like Dan talks about)

[@welcometonebalia]

Thank you.

[@ronwright6870]

Man this is a fantastic vodeo!!

[@dwightdhansen]

Exactly who determines which causes are legitimate? Oh, you do? 🤔
Imagine advocating for the divine right to be a jerk.

[@JopJio]

Jerome:
"Some copies add here the words, without cause; but by the true reading the precept is made unconditional, *and anger altogether forbidden.* For when we are told to pray for them that persecute us, all occasion of anger is taken away. The words without cause then must be erased, for the wrath of man works not the righteousness of God"
Augustine:
"Should any ask what greater punishment is reserved for mu**rd**er, if evil-speaking is visited with hell-fire? This obl**ig**es us to understand, that there are degrees in hell"
This also shows they didnt necessarily believe that every Christian is unconditionallly saved.

[@johnlauriestewart]

Probably would be more useful (I know it is a short video) to explain the lingo of textual criticism if you are going to use terms like homoioteleuton and homoioarcton rather than just dropping them into the presentation. Also, work on your pronunciation of homoioteleuton. Otherwise, spot on.

[@Bright_Sol]

Anger is the most destructive of all emotions. I causes irrationality in people (I don't know what came over me), can feel validating and powerful in the moment, is contagious and can lead to mob mentalities. Large groups of angry people who temporarily lose their sense of control and irrationality. Perhaps what is being said is to avoid this. Doesn't mean you cannot stand up for yourself.
I have heard/ read that anger can be a useful for some when it is checked and focused though most of us seem in adequately equipped for this.

[@sethhornaday5943]

Who ever believes that verse. Don't get angry with somebody, don't show how u feel, don't be a real person, just bottle it all up, don't express your true emotions

[@BradyPostma]

Scriptures rarely address the internal world of feelings and psychology. They were not influenced by Freud and Jung the way that we all are.
When they speak of wrath, they probably mean the outward expression of wrath - public embarrassment, shouting, throwing things, violence, etc. I wouldn't take that to mean that you ought not feel, but rather that you ought not cause harm in a destructive reaction to how you feel.
But you're free to negotiate with the text on your own terms. This is just my negotiation.

[@thomasdalton1508]

Since when have conspirators rewriting history included footnotes pointing out the alternative version?

[@michaeljames4509]

The irony of cowboy thinking the translation based on the older text is a newer version. 🤦‍♂️

[@metjetfan23]

Original creator want to hate. Also who does he think removed it?

[@christasimon9716]

It's nice that Mr. Christian Cowboy needs to conjure up a reason to hate people. _Very_ Christian of him.

[@BabyHoolighan]

Exposing nuts to Dan's elegant presentation of facts will make no difference except to us. Nuts will just keep making things up because they are neurologically primed to do that. It takes a boot camp experience to re-boot their patterns of receptive behavior.

[@cinnamondan4984]

Reading the NRSVue it feels like some parts are better scholarship reshaping renderings of the text whereas in other places it feels like the revisers are trying to make the text say what they want it to say for political/ideological reasons.

[@fre2725]

Perhaps; scholars are just people who can be swayed by peer pressure and incentive structures. But do you have any specific examples of ideological revisions?

[@cinnamondan4984]

@@fre2725 1 Corinthians 9-10. The gender neutral use. I welcome both but doubt they reflect the original intent of the author. Maybe that does not matter. I think the first verse of Genesis is now likely more accurate in the revision.

[@SaidAhmad]

I would love to hear this cowpoke’s take on Matthew 5:39 😂😂

[@reversefulfillment9189]

No, none of the doctrines were important to anyone capable of thinking for themselves, as a matter of fact, the doctrines are mostly toxic.

[@clarencehammer3556]

I think you said you did a mission in Uruguay. You must also speak Spanish. Which Spanish version of the Bible did you use during that time? Mine is Reina-Valera 1960. What is your opinion on that version. I just looked up Mateo 5:22 and it does not say “sin causa”.

[@racheladkins6060]

Thank you. That cowboy is proof of what’s wrong with America, muppets! Greetings 🖖 England. I never read the King James Version.

[@Sportliveonline]

so what do you think about the new world translation Jehovahs witness translation

[@petervancaeseele9832]

"They" are making the bible woke !

[@niknotnikki]

Pre King James bibles are readily available in English, aren't they?

[@SantoAtheos]

So We really shouldn't get angry with or without cause and harass this creator. 👍

[@danieldengL4R]

Hi Dan,
Do you believe that the Bible teaches that the sun will literally be darkened & that the stars will literally fall?

[@FaptainCalcon750]

I doubt he believes that the Bible teaches that as future events.
Scholarly consensus says that Revelation was written as apocalyptic propaganda and *not* some series of prophecies about the future at the time of writing.

[@danieldengL4R]

@@FaptainCalcon750 It is not actually true! The contents of Revelation can all be found in the Hebrew Bible. The notion that the writings of the Prophets are ex eventu is fake news! It demonstrates lack of critical examination skills of the so-called critical scholars of the Bible. Which again is the very reason I want to know Dan McClellan understanding of the symbolism of the darkened celestial luminaries! If he doesn't understand what that symbolism accurately means, then neither is his critical dismissal of the veracity of the sacred text of the Bible!

[@Azho64]

Never could stomach the KJV only cult!

[@clearstonewindows]

I'm going to go with the Joseph smith version.

[@BradyPostma]

The Joseph Smith Translation doesn't touch this verse.

[@clearstonewindows]

@@BradyPostma ? yes, it does and so does the Book of Mormon. It also omits the phrase. If you have an older JST you may not have the updates purchased from a bit back.

[@st.anic_panic]

Never trust someone wearing a cowboy hat indoors. Modern-day dunce cap.

[@stormy8110]

But, Dan, it's the /KJV/ and we know God herself wrote it! 😂😂😂

[@jaclo3112]

If the KJV was good enough for jesus, it's good enough for me!!!!!

[@SpaveFrostKing]

Yeah but the KJV was inspired. God fixed the mistakes scribes and translators had made over the years. (I wish I didn't have to specify sarcasm here, but sadly I do)

[@mjt532]

The guy making the video doesn't understand what a manuscript is. He thinks "manuscripts" means modern translations.

[@noracola5285]

"I don't believe in manuscripts, only goduscripts" 😔

[@Kenji17171]

Is it a good idea to negotiate text to the point where you can ignore what historical Jesus really said or what the author truly meant?

[@GreaverBlade]

I'll argue yes. Especially Leviticus 24:44-46.

[@Jd-808]

As far as the historical Jesus, we can’t truly know what he said since we don’t have any writings from him & the teachings come to us in written form quite a bit later. Some things are just more probable than others. But I don’t think, even if you felt pretty sure he said something, that’d mean you couldn’t disagree with it. There’s no doubt that even his first followers, and certainly Paul, were picking and choosing & interpreting his ideas to best fit their own worldviews.
As far as the author goes, I get the impression Dan would say that’s not a good idea & authorial intent is crucial to understanding. But that isn’t to say Christians can’t negotiate with what they intend. For example, as Dan has pointed out, Paul has some ideas that haven’t aged well. You should try to understand his intent & why he would’ve had these ideas, & you can then assess whether or not you think his reasoning is valid today. You can always disagree with any of the authors, or even Jesus, but it’s never not a good idea to ask why they are saying the things they are saying before judging one way or the other.

[@Kenji17171]

@@Jd-808 Hey can you help me with this? I want to be a Biblical Unitarian. I think Jesus didn't undersant himself to be God therefore he is not God. But I think there are verses in the Bible that depict Jesus as God and I think there are verses that put words into Jesus' mouth as if he was claiming to be God . My question is would it be theologically consistent and plausible move for me to see these verses that depict Jesus as God and as if he was claming to be God as both theological and historical errors in the Bible and ignore those verses and hold the Unitarian view of God(denying the view that Jesus is God)?

[@Jd-808]

@@Kenji17171 Unfortunately, I don’t really know anything about theology. Just fyi, I’m not a Christian, those are just my opinions & my guesses as to what Dan’s are. Personally I think doctrines like inerrancy, infallibility, univocality do a lot of harm and inhibit a richer understanding of the texts & I think it’s counter-productive in a lot of ways for Christians to adhere to them.
I will say though, that your idea that the verses that seem to us as depicting Jesus as God (I say ‘seem to us’ because Dan would actually tell you there are no such verses, btw…might want to look at some of his videos about this) are ahistorical (consensus view) & theological mistakes would both obviously be consistent with a theological understanding that Jesus is not God. Whether or not that’s consistent with Biblical Unitarianism I couldn’t say, since I don’t really know what that means.
For example, they might have a dogma that everything in the Bible is inerrant, in which case there couldn’t be any theological (or any other kind of) mistakes, & verses that conflict with their theology must be interpreted differently. Or maybe that belief entails every saying attributed to Jesus historically happened. So you’d have to investigate things like that.
I do wonder why it’s important to align yourself with this particular understanding though. If it’s for reasons of community I think that’s totally understandable, but unfortunately I don’t think I can help with reconciling your beliefs with the beliefs you feel you ‘should’ have to belong in that community.

[@Kenji17171]

@@Jd-808 thank you so much. I am battling with these thoughts and have almost noone to talk with lol. Actually a community or a label would be desireable. But if i don't fit any group I am open to be alone in my beliefs. Btw thank you for recommndation I watched the videos where Dan talks about Jesus not being God but God's name bearer. However I am not totally convinced by it but even in one of his streams he said something like "Gospel of John is where Jesus becomes closest to God" and in one comment he expressed Jesus as God is not totally a post nt idea and there is an overlap in the latest NT books. I might be misunderstanding him though...

[@pangelsaya]

This one absolutely drives me up the wall because it misses the entire point of Jesus’ RADICAL message of love and forgiveness. It makes one uncomfortable, it forces a double take, it’s difficult to swallow and it is challenging. That’s why Jesus said it you dingus! That’s what makes it so special and so profound. I swear all these right wing Christian Nationalists just want to pick at Jesus until he’s nothing but a shell of what he once represented.

[@stephenspackman5573]

Ah, the expression on your face at the start reminds me of my late father, who, as he ushered the doorstepping evangelists into his study, would say, “let's just look that up. You _do_ read Greek and Hebrew?”

[@danielkim9997]

So what you're saying is that the bible was stitched together by man's best guess. And this book is supposedly the truth? Big yikes.

[@sotl97]

I don't have it in front of me right now, but the Strongs reading, does it include the extra word? What are some reliable source documents for the original Greek and Hebrew?

[@NathanielDowell]

He actually just published a video about problems with using Strong's as a resource, largely because we have made a lot of advancements and discoveries in the 100+ years since Strong's was published.

[@sotl97]

@@NathanielDowell did he offer a better option?

[@OldMotherLogo]

He already mentioned a couple of texts in this video. There are *lots* of variants, there is no single best source. Probably the best you can do is the recent new study Bible he mentioned in a recent video that lists lots of the variants. You will have to search his recent videos for it.

[@sotl97]

@@OldMotherLogo do you know of a more reliable source like Strongs? That is what I am asking.

[@OldMotherLogo]

Nope

[@hrvatskinoahid1048]

Genesis 18:22 and Numbers 11:15 are scribal emendations according to Rashi. Do they remove important doctrine? Nope. They're not source verses for any commandments.

[@JopJio]

Didn't you preach that todays torah is literally the same as Moses wrote it? So how come there are changes and why did they add words into the torah, when God says to don't do it? And why don't you then just remove them?

[@hrvatskinoahid1048]

​@@JopJio Out of 5,845 verses in the Pentateuch, 2 scribal emendations are not problematic. I am not Jewish, and I have no authority to write or change a Torah scroll.

[@JopJio]

​@@hrvatskinoahid1048 there are more than 2 even according
Jewish Rabbis. Ibn Ezra for example speaks of 18 verses which couldnt have been written by Moses and modern scholars question the whole 5 books.

[@hrvatskinoahid1048]

​@@JopJio According to some Jewish rabbis, they are not actual emendations, but scripture is speaking in a way that the scribes would. Are you Muslim by any chance? That would explain exaggerating the scribal emendations in the Torah.

[@JopJio]

@@hrvatskinoahid1048 no. And Abraham Ibn Ezra has the same authority as Rashi by the way. And I was just suprised, you said many times that the torah of Moses is the same as today. But now you admit scribal additions. This is was surprisimg to me and that's it.

[@peterhook2258]

lol I love this so Christianity just like Joseph Smiths restoration added context to make the meaning more clear. Love it! Peace.

[@EricMcLuen]

Must not know the definition of 'some'.

[@ronjones1414]

As a counter poinr, textus receptus includes eike. Maybe history shouldn't be determined by UV radiation.

[@NathanielDowell]

You could rephrase your comment as "Why don't modern translations include "without cause" when "eike" is present in the textus receptus?" and then watch Dan's video again. The textus receptus was what they used for the New Testament translation of the 1611 KJV.

[@ronjones1414]

@@NathanielDowell thank you for expounding on my point. Alexandrian doesn't trump Receptus because they're older.

[@benjaminmichael3250]

Jesus Christ is the biggest lie ...

[@davidjanbaz7728]

LOL 😂 Dan, Good Evangelical Maximumist scholarship has already debunked this hyper literalist fundamentalist! ( KJV only)
Your just a Danny come lately!