@@ViralChristianity No. Just tired of people attacking experts while demonstrating they are clueless. Pretty sure I've seen atheists do something like that, too, but religious times, for whatever reason, seem especially prone to do it. The other big group (and there is, of course, substantial overlap) are the strongly right-wing types.
As a believer I’ve learned a lot from your videos, EP Sanders, and NT Wright. Can someone explain why the default position of deconstruction seems to be a jump to atheism? My journey from fundamentalism and univocality to a deeper understanding of cultural context and contradictions, more of an alignment with EP Sanders-esk style if you will, seem to have no philosophical implications on God’s existence. If anything it seems understanding these concepts has deepened my faith
It's a good question (that I am perhaps in a poor position to answer, as I never held to inerrancy). I would suppose that in several fundamental circles, the faith cultivated is a hard and brittle faith built on all or nothing thinking. I will say that even in my less fundamental upbringing, I was left with such a poor understanding of other options that a jump to atheism was rather immediate once Christianity became untenable, and I have since softened on my criticism of other types of beliefs. So perhaps I was not the worst answerer to start with.
@@EarnestApostate I've heard of a number of (often prominent) atheists tell how they came from Christianity to atheism. The way they got there varies widely, but for many, it was not a direct jump, they went through a number of different beliefs - but sometimes, they got there the direct way (as you described). Ehrmann, for example, got out of more extreme evangelical Christianity into a more moderate Version and then stayed there for years before he decided that even that could not stand up to the Problem of Evil. Matt Dillahunty studied arguments to be able to convert an atheist roommate and found himself an atheist. Aron Ra had a wild journey I can't keep straight through pagan faiths until (IIRC) he found out that his "supernatural" experiences weren't.
I think it's less to do with atheism being the _result_ of deconstructing, and more a fascination of various types of atheist. Some want to understand their believer friends & family better. Others want to point and laugh. Still others are awed by the human energy spent on ‘revenge fantasy fanfic Judaism’. Some, I'm sure, need some confirmation that leaving the faith was the right choice for them. Atheists aren't a homogeneous group, same as people who have never played saxophone or who gave up saxophone aren't a simple homogeneous group. Personally I find the history of passed-down manuscripts, editing, and all aspects of the printing process simply fascinating, and it has nothing to do with the Bible, that's just the guy on the operating table. I read Christopher Tolkien's _History of Middle-earth_ series for the same reason. And bear in mind that's the output of one person, analyzed by another who was deeply familiar with it (literally so). It really puts into perspective the sheer mass of changes made to get to what we can call a Bible today.
It’s because the church has turned into Bible worshipers. The trinity is Father, Son, Holy Bible. Their faith comes from the inerrancy of a book instead of the living Word (Jesus). The scriptures can still jive with one another when you change the lenses you see them through. It doesn’t mean they are univocal but they do seem to be pretty linear in thought. Progressive revelation is how I’ve heard it.
2 месяца назад+1
"seem to have no philosophical implications on God’s existence. If anything it seems understanding these concepts has deepened my faith" do you realize how utterly inconsistent that is? lol. C -
Always fun to see old english and recognize the words that it used to have in common with other Germanic languages. Here "gebed" is identical to the modern dutch word for (a) prayer and ut-adriften would probably be uitdrijven in dutch.
This is from the West-Saxon Gospels meaning the text was translated into the Late West Saxon dialect of Old English which supports the reported dating of 990 C.E. This is interesting because this translation would be reasonably contemporary with the composition of the Masoretic Text.
I knew someone who believed that all the text modifications done to the Bible texts that were eventually passed down to us were divinely inspired, as if God were working through history to make the texts better. He wasn't the sort who thought that it was some conspiracy that people were removing them, but it's an interesting dogma that, while academically easy to refute, is something I just didn't know how to mentally deal with at the time.
@@Jaymastia I think a better question that gets at the same idea is; why is it that Bible god's purported editing occurs in a way which is indistinguishable from humans doing it on their own for purely human reasons with purely human motivations while making purely human errors? As in, what justifies this assumption of a god when the simpler explanation is also the one borne out by the evidence, that the only entities involved here are humans?
@@rainbowkrampus God oversees the affairs of mankind, and allow them to have trial and errors with their plans but ultimately it's his plans that prevail. Proverbs 19:21. We would take an example of Israel victory streak in the OT, the moment they took one of the battles into their ego, they failed. They even tried again, when God gave them permission but failed again ( fail means people dying , errors and losing battles, fear factor etc). They succeeded after the right time and right rites was reached through God. But all of these will always be done through human interaction in the material world with God's overseer and point intervention.
Is there any consensus as to why John 5:3b-4 were interpolated? Compared to other commonly identified interpolations it doesn't seem to me to have any clear harmonising or argumentative purpose.
John 5:4 Some manuscripts include here, wholly or in part, paralyzed-and they waited for the moving of the waters. 4 From time to time an angel of the Lord would come down and stir up the waters. The first one into the pool after each such disturbance would be cured of whatever disease they had. Another added verse in the KJV and other older Bibles.
Hot Topic carries it under the label Marvel Hulk Retro Transforming T-Shirt. I find the thought of Dan shopping at Hot Topic to be weird for some reason.
Interesting that passages were omitted because they were not original to the text. I wonder how much of the Bible would be left if passages that are not historically accurate had been omitted.
As far as I'm aware, Biblical Scholars believe that we now have replicated the original autographs to something like 99.9% accuracy. Any 'errors' are merely minor spelling variations which have zero impact on the meaning of any text. The Nestle-Aland, Novum Testamentum Graece (28th ed.)
Good job on this one, Dan. Thank you for your clear explanation. Just my opinion, but I think you are at your best with these types of videos rather than responding to the no name, ignorant content creators and helping them gain the attention that they are so desperate for.
Most just don't actually study the Bible with any sort of critical scholarship and just assuming there's one "version" and that every other translation is just the same things with slightly different wording. If you were to tell them about changed/missing/added verses or that different churches have different canon with different book counts they will call it some trick of Satan. Or just default to King James and assume because it sounds "old" that it's the original.
Good eye. 16:15-20 does look bolted on. Looking at the footnotes in the NRSV it seems the original ending was 16:8 (kind of a cliff-hanger). There is a “shorter ending that presumably replaced 16:8. Then 16:9-20 is the longer ending that follows the original 16:8. Kind of mess. I like that the NRSV shows the omitted verses in the footnotes.
Well it's all just different flavors of the same Kool-Aid, but Dan has pointed out in several videos how there is no narrative of Jesus as equal to the Father or a Trinity in the Bible. JWs get that much correct. The Trinity is a post-biblical invention. And Trinitarians have never all agreed on the doctrinal minutiae.
Matthew 17:21 is a verse that is found in some manuscripts of the Bible but is omitted in others. In many modern translations, this verse is not included because it is not found in the earliest and most reliable Greek manuscripts. The verse states, "But this kind does not go out except by prayer and fasting." While it may not appear in all translations, the teachings of prayer and fasting are still present throughout the Bible. It's important to remember that the core message of the Gospel remains intact, regardless of the variations in specific verses.
Now, in the Lord’s hand there is a cup with foaming wine, all mixed. Shall I not take the cup which the Father has given to me? Tonight I can truly say I have drunk the cup to the very dregs. I have played the white, the black, the yellow, the pink, the gray, the honored, and the dishonored. I have played them all, this I know. Everyone will play all the characters expressed in the world, but let me assure you who are here that no man comes unto me save my Father calls him. You are here because you have reached the end of the road and I have called you to play your part as the Lord God Jehovah.
You should really introduce yourself as a progressive Bible scholar. That way everyone is fully aware of how you approach your interpretations, opinions and claims.
You mean that he presents data to back up every one of his claims to demonstrate they are true rather than just spouting dogmatic assertions that he demands you follow because feels? If progressive is a synonym for honest, I think that’s clear enough.👍
@Evolution.1859 I don't think anyone has ever used progressive and honest in the same sentence. And no, he doesn't present the whole truth. Just the truth he wants people to see. He knows 99.9% of his fanboys like you won't do any research to validate anything he says. Why? Because it aligns with your own bias. But thanks for thinking you had any point whatsoever
@@sbaker8971 Like you don't have any biases? Do you have to come on virtually every video of Dan's and b#$ch and moan? If you don't like his videos, go watch other scholars that align with your views.
@epicofatrahasis3775 Of course, I have biases. Everyone has biases. You just now discovered this?!? I'm sorry you fanboys get upset when your idol gets challenged and proven wrong. Do you need a tissue or are you going to be OK?
@@sbaker8971 LOL. You don’t know me. You don’t know him. Data > Dogma. Bring your rebuttals if you have any. Have you found problems with his translations or any of his claims? Challenge them. BTW, I’m an anti-theist, strong atheist who’s probably read the Bible more than most people you know. I’ve had a few disagreements with Dan’s interpretations, but, as a whole, his approach to the Bible is one of the most honest I’ve seen. That’s what happens when you study under Francesca Stavrakapoulou and are honest with yourself.
If English was good enough for Jesus...
Well, the KJV was good enough for St Paul...
The original Hulk , mind you
not a later altered text ;)
i.e. a green Hulk.
@@Welverin Wasn't the original gray?
@@KaiHenningsen Yes, which makes green Hulk the later altered version.
@@Welverin ... which was another thing I learned from Dan.
Thank you for sharing this. Education is key.
Don't take this little Bart-Ehrman wannabe seriously. He's just trying to create a false impression that he knows more than you do
@@ViralChristianity ... says the guy trying to create a false impression that he knows more than you do
@@KaiHenningsen butt-hurt atheist?
"butt hurt"??? Did you learn that in Christianity? Is that what Jesus would ask? Way to represent the religious 👏 @@ViralChristianity
@@ViralChristianity No. Just tired of people attacking experts while demonstrating they are clueless. Pretty sure I've seen atheists do something like that, too, but religious times, for whatever reason, seem especially prone to do it. The other big group (and there is, of course, substantial overlap) are the strongly right-wing types.
Why don't people talk about all the slavery, genocide, rape, incest and cannibalism from the old testament?
You can have either accuracy or the illusion of inerrancy, but not both.
It’s still plenty inerrant-because it’s more accurate
But you can have neither.😊
Min 2:40 onward Yes, this establishes that the " Divinely Inspired " words have been deliberately altered. Plain. And. Simple.
I have the Revised Standard Version ( 1952 published by The Melton Book Company)
It's missing Matthew 17, verses 20 and 21.
❤❤❤❤❤ thanks Dan!!!!
Thanks Dan!❤
As a believer I’ve learned a lot from your videos, EP Sanders, and NT Wright. Can someone explain why the default position of deconstruction seems to be a jump to atheism? My journey from fundamentalism and univocality to a deeper understanding of cultural context and contradictions, more of an alignment with EP Sanders-esk style if you will, seem to have no philosophical implications on God’s existence. If anything it seems understanding these concepts has deepened my faith
It's a good question (that I am perhaps in a poor position to answer, as I never held to inerrancy). I would suppose that in several fundamental circles, the faith cultivated is a hard and brittle faith built on all or nothing thinking.
I will say that even in my less fundamental upbringing, I was left with such a poor understanding of other options that a jump to atheism was rather immediate once Christianity became untenable, and I have since softened on my criticism of other types of beliefs. So perhaps I was not the worst answerer to start with.
@@EarnestApostate I've heard of a number of (often prominent) atheists tell how they came from Christianity to atheism. The way they got there varies widely, but for many, it was not a direct jump, they went through a number of different beliefs - but sometimes, they got there the direct way (as you described). Ehrmann, for example, got out of more extreme evangelical Christianity into a more moderate Version and then stayed there for years before he decided that even that could not stand up to the Problem of Evil. Matt Dillahunty studied arguments to be able to convert an atheist roommate and found himself an atheist. Aron Ra had a wild journey I can't keep straight through pagan faiths until (IIRC) he found out that his "supernatural" experiences weren't.
I think it's less to do with atheism being the _result_ of deconstructing, and more a fascination of various types of atheist.
Some want to understand their believer friends & family better. Others want to point and laugh. Still others are awed by the human energy spent on ‘revenge fantasy fanfic Judaism’. Some, I'm sure, need some confirmation that leaving the faith was the right choice for them. Atheists aren't a homogeneous group, same as people who have never played saxophone or who gave up saxophone aren't a simple homogeneous group.
Personally I find the history of passed-down manuscripts, editing, and all aspects of the printing process simply fascinating, and it has nothing to do with the Bible, that's just the guy on the operating table. I read Christopher Tolkien's _History of Middle-earth_ series for the same reason. And bear in mind that's the output of one person, analyzed by another who was deeply familiar with it (literally so). It really puts into perspective the sheer mass of changes made to get to what we can call a Bible today.
It’s because the church has turned into Bible worshipers. The trinity is Father, Son, Holy Bible. Their faith comes from the inerrancy of a book instead of the living Word (Jesus).
The scriptures can still jive with one another when you change the lenses you see them through. It doesn’t mean they are univocal but they do seem to be pretty linear in thought. Progressive revelation is how I’ve heard it.
"seem to have no philosophical implications on God’s existence. If anything it seems understanding these concepts has deepened my faith" do you realize how utterly inconsistent that is? lol. C -
Love the fit Dan ❤
Here is the first English translation of Matt 17:21 I could find:
Soðlice þis kyn ne beoð ut-adrifen buten þurh gebed & fæsten.
Always fun to see old english and recognize the words that it used to have in common with other Germanic languages. Here "gebed" is identical to the modern dutch word for (a) prayer and ut-adriften would probably be uitdrijven in dutch.
I can’t believe this was english back then, it’s like a totaly different language 😂
This is from the West-Saxon Gospels meaning the text was translated into the Late West Saxon dialect of Old English which supports the reported dating of 990 C.E. This is interesting because this translation would be reasonably contemporary with the composition of the Masoretic Text.
Is this give us this day our daily bread?
@@BabyHoolighan Indeed, the fact that it is close to the Massoretic text era is very interessting.
Those documents... sigh.
I knew someone who believed that all the text modifications done to the Bible texts that were eventually passed down to us were divinely inspired, as if God were working through history to make the texts better. He wasn't the sort who thought that it was some conspiracy that people were removing them, but it's an interesting dogma that, while academically easy to refute, is something I just didn't know how to mentally deal with at the time.
I agree to a high degree as a Christian. This includes the Great Schism.
But this verse makes a complete sense with 21
@@PorgyGeorgy1 good job, how ?
@@Jaymastia I think a better question that gets at the same idea is; why is it that Bible god's purported editing occurs in a way which is indistinguishable from humans doing it on their own for purely human reasons with purely human motivations while making purely human errors? As in, what justifies this assumption of a god when the simpler explanation is also the one borne out by the evidence, that the only entities involved here are humans?
@@rainbowkrampus God oversees the affairs of mankind, and allow them to have trial and errors with their plans but ultimately it's his plans that prevail. Proverbs 19:21.
We would take an example of Israel victory streak in the OT, the moment they took one of the battles into their ego, they failed. They even tried again, when God gave them permission but failed again ( fail means people dying , errors and losing battles, fear factor etc). They succeeded after the right time and right rites was reached through God.
But all of these will always be done through human interaction in the material world with God's overseer and point intervention.
"More accurate" = _less innacurate_ ... which means God's word has errors!
❤
You missed the perfect timing to use the term marginalia
I can't stand marginalia. Give me real butter or nothing. 😆
@@Nymaz nice
Is there any consensus as to why John 5:3b-4 were interpolated? Compared to other commonly identified interpolations it doesn't seem to me to have any clear harmonising or argumentative purpose.
John 5:4 Some manuscripts include here, wholly or in part, paralyzed-and they waited for the moving of the waters. 4 From time to time an angel of the Lord would come down and stir up the waters. The first one into the pool after each such disturbance would be cured of whatever disease they had.
Another added verse in the KJV and other older Bibles.
Is there a "best," or most accurate, translation of the Bible?
Of course! But the answer varies on who you ask.
I want that particular Jack Kirby tee-shirt but I can't find it anywhere. Any suggestions?
Hot Topic carries it under the label Marvel Hulk Retro Transforming T-Shirt.
I find the thought of Dan shopping at Hot Topic to be weird for some reason.
Interesting that passages were omitted because they were not original to the text. I wonder how much of the Bible would be left if passages that are not historically accurate had been omitted.
As far as I'm aware, Biblical Scholars believe that we now have replicated the original autographs to something like 99.9% accuracy. Any 'errors' are merely minor spelling variations which have zero impact on the meaning of any text. The Nestle-Aland, Novum Testamentum Graece (28th ed.)
Given that the whole thing derives from a premise which is historically inaccurate, the answer is, all of them.
@@johnkilpatrick2343 Who as an autographed Bible? I want one
🤣🤣🤣
@@lokarthaaeris6506 perhaps you should get a dictionary. "Autographed" is quite different from "autograph".
Good job on this one, Dan. Thank you for your clear explanation. Just my opinion, but I think you are at your best with these types of videos rather than responding to the no name, ignorant content creators and helping them gain the attention that they are so desperate for.
Both types are useful and necessary.
Silly question, considering the numerous version of the texts, how do they determine which is inerrant?
That's obvious. It's the one they grew up with.
Most just don't actually study the Bible with any sort of critical scholarship and just assuming there's one "version" and that every other translation is just the same things with slightly different wording. If you were to tell them about changed/missing/added verses or that different churches have different canon with different book counts they will call it some trick of Satan.
Or just default to King James and assume because it sounds "old" that it's the original.
Would this be the same for Mark 16:15-20?
Good eye. 16:15-20 does look bolted on.
Looking at the footnotes in the NRSV it seems the original ending was 16:8 (kind of a cliff-hanger). There is a “shorter ending that presumably replaced 16:8. Then 16:9-20 is the longer ending that follows the original 16:8. Kind of mess. I like that the NRSV shows the omitted verses in the footnotes.
@@dantallman5345 Yes, 16:9-20 is what I meant to say in my OP. Thanks!
Old Jehovah's Witness joke: what was Jesus' favorite detergent? Then look up one of these verses and say Dash.
Well it's all just different flavors of the same Kool-Aid, but Dan has pointed out in several videos how there is no narrative of Jesus as equal to the Father or a Trinity in the Bible.
JWs get that much correct. The Trinity is a post-biblical invention. And Trinitarians have never all agreed on the doctrinal minutiae.
"Blessed is he who memorizes minutiae" it says...nowhere.
Until now
Then indicate so , don't put it down
Matthew 17:21 is a verse that is found in some manuscripts of the Bible but is omitted in others. In many modern translations, this verse is not included because it is not found in the earliest and most reliable Greek manuscripts. The verse states, "But this kind does not go out except by prayer and fasting." While it may not appear in all translations, the teachings of prayer and fasting are still present throughout the Bible. It's important to remember that the core message of the Gospel remains intact, regardless of the variations in specific verses.
They don't care about the words...they sure don't follow the magic boy
delete all the verses and chuck it in the garbage
Now, in the Lord’s hand there is a cup with foaming wine, all mixed. Shall I not take the cup which the Father has given to me? Tonight I can truly say I have drunk the cup to the very dregs. I have played the white, the black, the yellow, the pink, the gray, the honored, and the dishonored. I have played them all, this I know. Everyone will play all the characters expressed in the world, but let me assure you who are here that no man comes unto me save my Father calls him. You are here because you have reached the end of the road and I have called you to play your part as the Lord God Jehovah.
You should really introduce yourself as a progressive Bible scholar. That way everyone is fully aware of how you approach your interpretations, opinions and claims.
You mean that he presents data to back up every one of his claims to demonstrate they are true rather than just spouting dogmatic assertions that he demands you follow because feels? If progressive is a synonym for honest, I think that’s clear enough.👍
@Evolution.1859 I don't think anyone has ever used progressive and honest in the same sentence.
And no, he doesn't present the whole truth. Just the truth he wants people to see. He knows 99.9% of his fanboys like you won't do any research to validate anything he says. Why? Because it aligns with your own bias.
But thanks for thinking you had any point whatsoever
@@sbaker8971 Like you don't have any biases? Do you have to come on virtually every video of Dan's and b#$ch and moan?
If you don't like his videos, go watch other scholars that align with your views.
@epicofatrahasis3775 Of course, I have biases. Everyone has biases. You just now discovered this?!? I'm sorry you fanboys get upset when your idol gets challenged and proven wrong. Do you need a tissue or are you going to be OK?
@@sbaker8971 LOL. You don’t know me. You don’t know him. Data > Dogma. Bring your rebuttals if you have any. Have you found problems with his translations or any of his claims? Challenge them. BTW, I’m an anti-theist, strong atheist who’s probably read the Bible more than most people you know. I’ve had a few disagreements with Dan’s interpretations, but, as a whole, his approach to the Bible is one of the most honest I’ve seen. That’s what happens when you study under Francesca Stavrakapoulou and are honest with yourself.
I am good with the Kjv. 20-21. √
It's obvious your dogma matters more to you than reality and the data.
I thought god wrote the bible and it was complete and perfect and unassailable.