I remember a group of scholars (bio-medical not Biblical, historian, or language), that were analyzing old books, etc. (not just the Bible) for clues about histories of medical problems. They came to conclusions about the stories about Goliath (/s) and his/their family, that were based on descriptions in the Bible, not only of Goliath (/s) and his/their family, etc., but other things in the text. They came up with a genetic explanation. Their conclusion was that the family had a deteriorating genome. They concluded that they had a rare genetic defect that results in high normal to somewhat gigantic proportions (in text) and other problems, some of which would be visible. They concluded they would not be great warriors, but rather big klutzes. Of course, the Hebrews would not have known this, when they faced the first Goliath. This used to be called Easter Island Statue Syndrome, because the victims looked like the statues. In the 1930s, there was a Hollywood actor with it who played in horror movies. The later members of the Goliath family were described as having 6 fingers and toes. This was taken as further genetic breakdown.
We read 1 and 2 Samuel in my Humanities class, and I love reading the last four chapters of 2 Samuel with my students. Usually they just kind of glossed over it when they read it because it's just so weird, and then I start pointing out the various elements in it, including the story of Rizpa, the other story of Goliath's death, the story of David's warriors, and then the final bit with the story of the census. They are usually fascinated by the end of it.
@@Ma1q444 I am not "evangelizing atheism," I am explaining the literature of the text to them. If you think that merely explaining the text is tantamount to teaching people atheism, what does that say for the bible?
@@dominicmoras4283 - raising my hand!! I got my degree in Theology and by the end of my Jr year I was already deconverting. Studying the bible is what caused me to realize it's all manmade not divine.
I really liked this video because it shows on a very specific, easy to understand way that Biblical scholars do what they do. It shows the issues, the specific words in question and how, when and why they think each text developed with the languages of the people. They can demonstrate in each language including the look-alike words. This stuff is almost always more complex than this. In this instance, though, it is small and easy to follow the issue even if you do not know the languages. As such, I'd love to see as many of these "simple" examples as possible as it drives the idea of how this type of scholarship works and why scholars come to these conclusions. So Dan, if you are reading this CHOPCHOP 😂
@Ma1q444 And I should believe you why? What is your education? Where is your evidence? What languages do you speak? If you disagree with Dan, then go post in the general chat and not some random comment on a seven month old post. And provide some evidence.
@Ma1q444 I did. It is listed as a Hebrew word. Please provide links to anything saying it is not or go post to Dan. Literally, tons of people posted on this video yet you post here? Provide links.
@@lde-m8688 there is no need to post links as Lahmi is not a semetic word and there is no evidence of it being one, show me evidence. I don’t need to provide the evidence when you make the claim that is unsupported. The claim that “Lahmi” means “my bread” is a speculative assertion, you pass off as objectively true rather linguistic evidence. In Hebrew “lechem” (לֶחֶם) means “bread,” the implication that the suffix “-i” implies possession “my”, is purely speculative.
Without the David and Goliath story we would not have Michelangelo’s David so I am all for it. 😊 Kudos to my high school religion teacher who pointed out to us this contradiction in the Hebrew Bible in 1968.
3:55 You mentioned an important point about David and people surrounding David who wrote stories. David also known for keeling a wealthy guy for his wealth and justifies it as an act of his gad. The scribes wrote this and they were in not in a position to offend this criminal minded king known for keeling uriah.
I texted my mother this video (which I agree with Dan here). Her response: "By the way 1Chronicles 20:5 not only is when David is King and different war but the giant was Lahmi brother of Goliath and Elhanan son of Jair slew him. But 2Samuel 20:19 says it slightly different. But it is clearly a whole different time in 1Samuel 17 about young David that killed Goliath. NIV and NLT MSG translations all have 2Samuel 21:19 same account as 2Chronicles. But again the main point is God was with them, those who slew the giants in the land in this historical account of Jewish history."
your mum is a wise woman, yes Samuel is a youth in 1 Samuel 17 and he has no servants and its a 1v1 duel, the battle we read about much later in 2 Samuel is way later, it even says David nearly was killed but was rescued !!! this lines up with the Chronicles account where it says it was goliaths brother, and that makes sense because we already read of Goliaths death in 1 Sam 17. but further more, if Chronicles is wrong, then 1 Samuel 17 and through too 2 Samuel 20 is wrong, but then 2 Samuel 21 becomes the authority over 1 Samuel and Chronicles? if 1 Samuel 17 is wrong then who would put authority on 2 Samuel 21? its really simple, 2 Sam 21:19 should say "brother of", then everything works fine, 1 Sam would match 2 Sam and both would match Chronicles.
A passage that has caused some difficulty is found at 2 Samuel 21:19, where it states: “Elhanan the son of Jaare-oregim the Bethlehemite got to strike down Goliath the Gittite, the shaft of whose spear was like the beam of loom workers.” The parallel account at 1 Chronicles 20:5 reads: “Elhanan the son of Jair got to strike down Lahmi the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the shaft of whose spear was like the beam of loom workers.” Several suggestions have been made for an explanation of the problem. “The Soncino Books of the Bible” comments that there were TWO Goliaths, commenting also that ‘Goliath’ may have been a descriptive title like “Pharaoh,” “Rabshakeh,” or “Sultan.” The fact that one text refers to Jaare-origin, whereas the other reads Jair, and also that only the account in Second Samuel contains the term “Bethlehemite,” while the Chronicles account alone contains the name “Lahmi,”’has been suggested by the majority of commentators to be the result of a copyist’s error!
First Samuel 17:50,51: “So David prevailed over the Philistine with a sling and a stone; he struck down the Philistine and PUT HIM TO DEATH, though there was no sword in David’s hand. David continued running and stood over him. Then he took hold of the Philistine’s sword and pulled it out of its sheath and made sure that he was DEAD by cutting off his head with it. When the Philistines saw that their mighty one had DIED, they fled.”
no, 2 Samuel 21:19 should say "brother of", if 2 Samuel said "brother of" just like Chronicles says, then everything all works fine. 1 sam 17 would work with 2 sam 21 and they would both work with Chronicles.... but if you say 2 Samuel 21 is correct then that makes 1 samuel 17 wrong, many events up until 2 Sam 21 would be wrong and Chronicles would be wrong.... i think a scribe missed "brother of" in 2 Sam 21, or else so much of Sam is wrong and we should not take 2 Samuel as an authority over Chronicles if so much is wrong... i tell you, there is one small issue in 2 Samuel 21, it just needs to say "brother of" and then all the texts agree.
Dr. Kaspars Ozoliņš has an article online showing how both texts were mutually corrupted from a common original text which likely read, “And there was again war with the Philistines at Gob, and Elhanan the son of Yaur, the Bethlehemite, struck down the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver’s beam.” This is a matter of simple textual error in the copying process rather than evidence for varying source traditions. Further he showed that Samuel duplicate the word “oregim/weaver’s” which Chronicles did not, showing that Chronicles did not copy the current version of Samuel but rather an earlier version without that error.
@@Subutai2024 - The Book of Revelation says the end would be signaled by Trump/Pence. A clerical error accidentally rendered that as 'trumpets,' though. [This is satire.]
Of course the idea of David defeating of Goliath wasn’t as improbable as it's often made out to be. The sling weapon was a much more sophisticated and common device in that era then a toy slingshot we're led to believe. The weapon was quite capable of killing a man when wielded by someone who was practiced with it.
You've missed the point. The bible directly contradicts itself in the telling of the tale. Whether or not a slingshot could kill a large man is irrelevant.
Oh, they surely have. It's just not this detail. It's very likely that stories of great achievements are pasted to a ruler that actually existed, you know, to rise in his favour.
I'm convinced by Dr. Joel Baden's argument that David was probably a real king bc the story of his rise to power reads like an apologetic, where everyone politically inconvenient to David dies but it's never David's fault. He starts the story by running a protection racket for animal herds, happens to be "enslaved" by Judah's enemies while the former king is killed, and a small Philistine boy brings David the crown just because he thinks David should have it. It's nonsense, but the kind of nonsense you write when you have to cover for real-life behavior.
A big thing is Elhanan shifted to El Hanan would be God's Gracious Gift, more of a title as Hanan as a given name is Gracious Gift or even God's Grace?
Hey Dan, this is relatively off-topic, but I've been curious about this issue and I'm not sure how else to contact you: I've seen some speculation that there was possibly an earlier version of the story of the Binding of Isaac where Isaac actually was actually sacrificed rather than spared, and that the story was later changed as human sacrifice became less palatable. I was wondering what take, if any, you had on this--is it probable, plausible, possible but unlikely, or complete hooey?
@@GypsyScot1Dr. Joel Baden of Yale Divinity School is one of the world's foremost scholars of the composition of the Torah. He says he is unconvinced of this idea because Isaac continues to be in the story, and a version where Isaac is acting sacrificed doesn't gel with the rest of the plot.
I think he addressed this in one of his videos. Do a search for him and child sacrifice, both on this channel and his long form videos, Data Over Dogma.
Surprised there was no mention of the Masoretes inserting "brother of" into 2 Samuel 21:19 so that Protestant Bibles now say "Elhannan killed the brother of Goliath". The Septuagint, on the other hand, retains the original version of the passage.
@@k98killer They add it in in order to resolve the contradiction elaborated in this video. The NIV has a footnote on the verse saying it's not in the Hebrew.
@@MrEVAQ I see. Perhaps I'm getting mixed up, but I recall hearing Dan or another biblical scholar mention the insertion of "brother of" by the Masoretes. Perhaps it was an insertion in a different passage.
I’m no fan of David, any way you slice it. The David and Goliath story is always framed as the little guy versus the big guy, with the little guy winning against innumerable odds. But Goliath came at David with a sword and David used a battle sling; essentially Goliath brought a knife to a gun fight. He didn’t stand a chance.
@@stevenbatke2475 Not quite. Indiana Jones was fighting for his life and didn’t seek out the battle with the Arab warrior. David accepted a challenge, best man wins, with every intention of cheating.
[Genesis 1 Elohim vs Genesis 2 Yahweh Elohim]: "Deus" means "God", "Dea" means "Goddess", and "Dei" could either mean "gods" (plural) or "God's" (possessive) based on context. The Hebrew counterparts to the Latin above are El, Elah and Elohim. The Hebrews "syncretized" these three titles into all just meaning "El". The sheer amount of biblical contradictions that caused is staggering. The Elohist uses the possessive context for Elohim (except when referencing the false Elohim). The Yahwist, Priestly and Deuteronomist use the plural context for Elohim (except when referencing the true Elohim). What is the heresy of two powers in heaven? The basic heresy involved interpreting scripture to say that a principal angelic or hypostatic manifestation in heaven was equivalent to God. The earliest heretics believed in two complementary powers in heaven, while later heretics believed in two opposing powers in heaven. The Bible isn't about El/Theos/Deus or whatever language you want to say the title (not a name) meaning God. The Bible is about Elohim (sons of El). Good vs evil Elohim, True vs false Elohim, Chosen vs adopted Elohim, Necessary vs contingent Elohim, Genesis 1 Elohim vs Genesis 2 Yahweh Elohim. Bibles should note when Elohim is used as plural or possessive. Try reading the NOG translation on Bible Gateway website. Uncensored. Theology comes from combining two Greek words: Theos, meaning God, and Logos, meaning Word or rational thought. [The Word is Elohim from Genesis 1] (not to be confused with Yahweh Elohim, the false Elohim, from Genesis 2) Compare John 1: 1-5 with Genesis 1: 1-5: John 1: 1-5 Names of God Bible The Word Becomes Human 1 In the beginning the Word already existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was already with God in the beginning. 3 Everything came into existence through him. Not one thing that exists was made without him. 4 He was the source of life, and that life was the light for humanity. 5 The light shines in the dark, and the dark has never extinguished it. Genesis 1: 1-5 Names of God Bible The Creation 1 In the beginning Elohim created heaven and earth. 2 The earth was formless and empty, and darkness covered the deep water. The Ruach Elohim was hovering over the water. 3 Then Elohim said, “Let there be light!” So there was light. 4 Elohim saw the light was good. So Elohim separated the light from the darkness. 5 Elohim named the light day, and the darkness he named night. There was evening, then morning-the first day.
It’s clear that is was scribal error, “the brother of” was miswritten. 1 chronicles 20:5 fixes this mistake, but as usual Common sense is not common. 2 Samuel 21:19 does not represent an earlier version it represents an error. your reasoning to support the contrary, is heavily flawed and bias. Lahmi is not a semetic name you claim this as if it is definitive, there is no evidence of this. Let’s say there is, you have a lot of interpretations I can say that’s just what the Hebrew people called him or that he was named a semetic name due to various reasons. Secondly, the claim that “Lahmi” means “my bread” is a speculative assertion, you pass off as objectively true rather linguistic evidence. In Hebrew “lechem” (לֶחֶם) means “bread,” the implication that the suffix “-i” implies possession “my”, is purely speculative. The rest of the video is also purely speculative as well which is claimed to be objective.
its had to believe what a mess you make of this... in 1 Sam 17 David is a youth, he does not have servants and he kills Goliath, there is then a whole long story until we get to 2 Samuel 21, where it describes them fighting a different battle, David is not such a youth and he has servants with him, not the 1v1 duel like 1 sam 17... it says elhanan killed goliath but instantly we can see error right there in that verse, Samuel is now in conflict with samuel, from reading up too now Goliath died long ago, so maybe we can find a clue somewhere else, Chronicles says it was actually his brother and not goliath itself! ok that makes sense now 2 Sam 21 should of said "brother of", then 1 Sam 17 is correct, all the context between 1 Sam 17 - 2 sam 21 would be correct and Chronicals would be correct... but if you say 2 Samuel 21 is not missing "brother of", then that means so so much is wrong, it would mean 1 Samuel 17 is wrong and Chronicals is wrong because you are standing on the authority of 2 Sam even though you think 90% of Sam is wrong !!!! unbelievable, 0 logic in his reasoning.
In 2 Sam 21, Goliath is killed by a leader of David's army named Elhanan, a man who shares his name with another of David's leaders. This Goliath's brother specifically targeted David a couple battles ago and his other brother was killed by David's nephew (who shares the name of David's best friend and his uncle). These giants are sons of "the" giant, and apparently have beef with David. Having just listed the 4 giants killed by people other than David, the chapter concludes saying that these were killed by David *and* his servants. So, this Goliath of is definitely the same one that David supposedly killed because they have the same name and share a feature. Makes sense. The part about the translation of et is fascinating. Excellent evidence that the record of David existed prior to the Babylonian exile.
Apparently timelines in the Bible don't matter anymore. When a story has chapters, different characters and mentions specifically one character from another story much later in life, this means it's the same story. 🙄
They really don't. The whole book is a manufactured work from multiple sources stitched together over centuries. Reading it from Geneses to Revelation expecting it to have been written in that order is naive, unfortunately.
@@xaayer oooh I get it! So "Biblical scholarship" means "not a single word, story, or grouping of words can be taken to mean anything of significance to one another." So why argue that the tav and the het look similar when you can just say "this word doesn't mean anything at all, get over it." 🙄
@@scambammer6102 🤣 I obviously meant modern Biblical scholars, but good to know the scribes and clergy of the KJV translation were also Biblical scholars as they would clearly disagree with Dan.
Have you ever wondered why Dan always says "the data"? Just as Christians want to control interpretation through calling it "The Bible," Dan wants to mirror the same unified, holistic, presentation by saying "the data". It isn't one, it isn't univocal, and there are various schools of interpretation on "the data" so all the arguments he gives against univocal readings of the Bible can be mirrored back on his own analysis. If he doesn't articulate various schools readings of "the data" it is because he wants to hide behind false univocality.
He says "the data" and "the consensus" because the data is information that's verifiable, and the consensus means that the MAJORITY of scholars agree that this is what it likely means given the data that's available and verifiable. There are other scholars that don't agree (and Dan does mention them in other videos), but also explains WHY the majority of scholars agree and have consensus on the interpretation of the data. He doesn't claim the data is univocal, nor that the interpretations are without disagreements. That's the difference between data and dogma.
@@Mercadian When I ask you to define "scholar" you will automatically limit based on a criteria, yes? Then when I ask you to justify that criteria, you will in a circular fashion point to scholars. It's a tired and boring game.
@@Hegelezeare you attempting to discredit his discussions because they don't agree with your dogma? Is it too much for your faith to accept that there is not univocality?
@Hegeleze lol what are you talking about you just changed the subject of what the commenter said. And it's not circular, there is verifiable data and then there is consensus of interpretation of said data that represent the majority. Luke the commenter before said Dan gives you reasons why this is the consensus. And he agrees with the consensus.if you want to argue a different interpretation of the data, that's what debates are for.
@@Hegelezethe difference between biblical DOGMA versus scholarly opinions on research of verifiable data is that dogma relies on tradition and presuppositions to fit and control the text. Data is data and supercedes tradition
Everyone knows that David killed Goliath. Any 5 year old in Sunday school could tell you that. The reading of it being the brother of Goliath is correct. Give me a break😂.
I remember a group of scholars (bio-medical not Biblical, historian, or language), that were analyzing old books, etc. (not just the Bible) for clues about histories of medical problems. They came to conclusions about the stories about Goliath (/s) and his/their family, that were based on descriptions in the Bible, not only of Goliath (/s) and his/their family, etc., but other things in the text. They came up with a genetic explanation. Their conclusion was that the family had a deteriorating genome. They concluded that they had a rare genetic defect that results in high normal to somewhat gigantic proportions (in text) and other problems, some of which would be visible. They concluded they would not be great warriors, but rather big klutzes. Of course, the Hebrews would not have known this, when they faced the first Goliath. This used to be called Easter Island Statue Syndrome, because the victims looked like the statues. In the 1930s, there was a Hollywood actor with it who played in horror movies. The later members of the Goliath family were described as having 6 fingers and toes. This was taken as further genetic breakdown.
Maybe Elhanan just ate David's bread that he was saving for lunch later? 😃
When this week started, I didn’t think I was going to learn about direct object markets in ancient Hebrew. But here we are..,
The Dave vs. Goliath story is so good that i am glad that it made the final edit.
Complete badassery!
Heck yeah, got it in the director's cut! lol.
The Spiderman shirt is a wink and a nod. Meaning these stories are ridiculous fiction just like comic book superheroes.
We read 1 and 2 Samuel in my Humanities class, and I love reading the last four chapters of 2 Samuel with my students. Usually they just kind of glossed over it when they read it because it's just so weird, and then I start pointing out the various elements in it, including the story of Rizpa, the other story of Goliath's death, the story of David's warriors, and then the final bit with the story of the census. They are usually fascinated by the end of it.
Why do evangelize atheism to your students?
@@Ma1q444 I am not "evangelizing atheism," I am explaining the literature of the text to them. If you think that merely explaining the text is tantamount to teaching people atheism, what does that say for the bible?
@@JonathanMartin884tbf reading the bible critically turned a lot of people to atheism 😅
@@dominicmoras4283 - raising my hand!! I got my degree in Theology and by the end of my Jr year I was already deconverting. Studying the bible is what caused me to realize it's all manmade not divine.
Thank you for these
Yes! Yes!!!! Excellent Dan!
I really liked this video because it shows on a very specific, easy to understand way that Biblical scholars do what they do. It shows the issues, the specific words in question and how, when and why they think each text developed with the languages of the people. They can demonstrate in each language including the look-alike words.
This stuff is almost always more complex than this. In this instance, though, it is small and easy to follow the issue even if you do not know the languages. As such, I'd love to see as many of these "simple" examples as possible as it drives the idea of how this type of scholarship works and why scholars come to these conclusions.
So Dan, if you are reading this CHOPCHOP 😂
Start factchecking and get out your echo chamber, Lahmi is not semetic.
@Ma1q444 And I should believe you why? What is your education? Where is your evidence? What languages do you speak? If you disagree with Dan, then go post in the general chat and not some random comment on a seven month old post. And provide some evidence.
@@lde-m8688 there is no evidence of lahmi being semetic please go and look.
@Ma1q444 I did. It is listed as a Hebrew word. Please provide links to anything saying it is not or go post to Dan. Literally, tons of people posted on this video yet you post here? Provide links.
@@lde-m8688 there is no need to post links as Lahmi is not a semetic word and there is no evidence of it being one, show me evidence.
I don’t need to provide the evidence when you make the claim that is unsupported.
The claim that “Lahmi” means “my bread” is a speculative assertion, you pass off as objectively true rather linguistic evidence. In Hebrew “lechem” (לֶחֶם) means “bread,” the implication that the suffix “-i” implies possession “my”, is purely speculative.
The detail of the language makes this Poirot-level deduction. Bravo!
Excellent reference
Plot twist: Goliath committed suicide, and David and Elhanon were both framed!
Wow, I never knew this. Thanks, Doc! That's crazy interesting. Going to have to go read more on this.
I always use that one. It's of my fav question to people who said the Bible it's "perfect".
Without the David and Goliath story we would not have Michelangelo’s David so I am all for it. 😊
Kudos to my high school religion teacher who pointed out to us this contradiction in the Hebrew Bible in 1968.
I learnt something here, today, thank you
3:55 You mentioned an important point about David and people surrounding David who wrote stories. David also known for keeling a wealthy guy for his wealth and justifies it as an act of his gad. The scribes wrote this and they were in not in a position to offend this criminal minded king known for keeling uriah.
I texted my mother this video (which I agree with Dan here). Her response:
"By the way 1Chronicles 20:5 not only is when David is King and different war but the giant was Lahmi brother of Goliath and Elhanan son of Jair slew him. But 2Samuel 20:19 says it slightly different. But it is clearly a whole different time in 1Samuel 17 about young David that killed Goliath. NIV and NLT MSG translations all have 2Samuel 21:19 same account as 2Chronicles. But again the main point is God was with them, those who slew the giants in the land in this historical account of Jewish history."
your mum is a wise woman, yes Samuel is a youth in 1 Samuel 17 and he has no servants and its a 1v1 duel, the battle we read about much later in 2 Samuel is way later, it even says David nearly was killed but was rescued !!! this lines up with the Chronicles account where it says it was goliaths brother, and that makes sense because we already read of Goliaths death in 1 Sam 17.
but further more, if Chronicles is wrong, then 1 Samuel 17 and through too 2 Samuel 20 is wrong, but then 2 Samuel 21 becomes the authority over 1 Samuel and Chronicles? if 1 Samuel 17 is wrong then who would put authority on 2 Samuel 21?
its really simple, 2 Sam 21:19 should say "brother of", then everything works fine, 1 Sam would match 2 Sam and both would match Chronicles.
A passage that has caused some difficulty is found at 2 Samuel 21:19, where it states: “Elhanan the son of Jaare-oregim the Bethlehemite got to strike down Goliath the Gittite, the shaft of whose spear was like the beam of loom workers.” The parallel account at 1 Chronicles 20:5 reads: “Elhanan the son of Jair got to strike down Lahmi the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the shaft of whose spear was like the beam of loom workers.”
Several suggestions have been made for an explanation of the problem. “The Soncino Books of the Bible” comments that there were TWO Goliaths, commenting also that ‘Goliath’ may have been a descriptive title like “Pharaoh,” “Rabshakeh,” or “Sultan.” The fact that one text refers to Jaare-origin, whereas the other reads Jair, and also that only the account in Second Samuel contains the term “Bethlehemite,” while the Chronicles account alone contains the name “Lahmi,”’has been suggested by the majority of commentators to be the result of a copyist’s error!
First Samuel 17:50,51: “So David prevailed over the Philistine with a sling and a stone; he struck down the Philistine and PUT HIM TO DEATH, though there was no sword in David’s hand. David continued running and stood over him. Then he took hold of the Philistine’s sword and pulled it out of its sheath and made sure that he was DEAD by cutting off his head with it. When the Philistines saw that their mighty one had DIED, they fled.”
Elhanan was stationed on the grassy knoll, just to make sure.
How come I never noticed this?
So basically, David didn't kill goliath😂
no, 2 Samuel 21:19 should say "brother of", if 2 Samuel said "brother of" just like Chronicles says, then everything all works fine. 1 sam 17 would work with 2 sam 21 and they would both work with Chronicles.... but if you say 2 Samuel 21 is correct then that makes 1 samuel 17 wrong, many events up until 2 Sam 21 would be wrong and Chronicles would be wrong.... i think a scribe missed "brother of" in 2 Sam 21, or else so much of Sam is wrong and we should not take 2 Samuel as an authority over Chronicles if so much is wrong... i tell you, there is one small issue in 2 Samuel 21, it just needs to say "brother of" and then all the texts agree.
Dr. Kaspars Ozoliņš has an article online showing how both texts were mutually corrupted from a common original text which likely read, “And there was again war with the Philistines at Gob, and Elhanan the son of Yaur, the Bethlehemite, struck down the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver’s beam.” This is a matter of simple textual error in the copying process rather than evidence for varying source traditions. Further he showed that Samuel duplicate the word “oregim/weaver’s” which Chronicles did not, showing that Chronicles did not copy the current version of Samuel but rather an earlier version without that error.
Damn, just, WOW!
As a Catholic, what I heard him say is that they should have just written it in Latin to begin with, as God intended.
Hahaha, yeah, how dare they not be conquered by Rome yet!!
I thought God intended it to be written in King James English.
They forgot to add tRump to the Bible, right? 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
@@Subutai2024 - The Book of Revelation says the end would be signaled by Trump/Pence. A clerical error accidentally rendered that as 'trumpets,' though.
[This is satire.]
@@BradyPostma If it was good enough for my ancestors...
So I shouted out, “Who killed the Goliath?” And according to Sir Michael Philip Jagger, it was you and me.
Pleased to meet you!
@@MarcillaSmithDid you guess his name?
@@alanb8884 I'm sure he prolly hopes so, but there's something troublin' me.
🤘
Thank you for clearing up the king james Bible is Blasphemous
Spiderman did!
@BibleUnboxed has a great video on this.
Of course the idea of David defeating of Goliath wasn’t as improbable as it's often made out to be. The sling weapon was a much more sophisticated and common device in that era then a toy slingshot we're led to believe. The weapon was quite capable of killing a man when wielded by someone who was practiced with it.
You've missed the point. The bible directly contradicts itself in the telling of the tale. Whether or not a slingshot could kill a large man is irrelevant.
@@Angela-ne9cy i wasn’t ignoring the point i was making an additional one.
Hmm.... I always felt the stories of David were the most likely to have some kernel of truth behind them. Guess I was wrong😊
Maybe the truth was Goliath was killed. It's the rest that is sus?
Oh, they surely have. It's just not this detail. It's very likely that stories of great achievements are pasted to a ruler that actually existed, you know, to rise in his favour.
I'm convinced by Dr. Joel Baden's argument that David was probably a real king bc the story of his rise to power reads like an apologetic, where everyone politically inconvenient to David dies but it's never David's fault. He starts the story by running a protection racket for animal herds, happens to be "enslaved" by Judah's enemies while the former king is killed, and a small Philistine boy brings David the crown just because he thinks David should have it. It's nonsense, but the kind of nonsense you write when you have to cover for real-life behavior.
A big thing is Elhanan shifted to El Hanan would be God's Gracious Gift, more of a title as Hanan as a given name is Gracious Gift or even God's Grace?
The Bible is cultural stories and parables for the most part
*Who was "Noe"? And who was ''the prophet Jeremy"?*
Noah and Jeremiah, the names in the New Testament were altered to fit the sound rules of Greek
What @weirdlanguageguy said. If you look in some older Bible translations like the Douay-Rheims, you'll see Noah rendered as Noe.
David taking credit for killing Goliath is a very David thing to do, if you think about it. Ask Bathsheba’s husband.
Hey Dan, this is relatively off-topic, but I've been curious about this issue and I'm not sure how else to contact you: I've seen some speculation that there was possibly an earlier version of the story of the Binding of Isaac where Isaac actually was actually sacrificed rather than spared, and that the story was later changed as human sacrifice became less palatable. I was wondering what take, if any, you had on this--is it probable, plausible, possible but unlikely, or complete hooey?
He responds often on tik tok.
@@SterlingTate Sigh. I guess that means I finally have to break down and make a tiktok account....
@@GypsyScot1Dr. Joel Baden of Yale Divinity School is one of the world's foremost scholars of the composition of the Torah. He says he is unconvinced of this idea because Isaac continues to be in the story, and a version where Isaac is acting sacrificed doesn't gel with the rest of the plot.
I think he addressed this in one of his videos. Do a search for him and child sacrifice, both on this channel and his long form videos, Data Over Dogma.
Hey Dan! I was wondering if you had a DM like an email? Thanks buddy..❤
its on his website
@@captionhere19 Thank you ❤️
Surprised there was no mention of the Masoretes inserting "brother of" into 2 Samuel 21:19 so that Protestant Bibles now say "Elhannan killed the brother of Goliath". The Septuagint, on the other hand, retains the original version of the passage.
The Masoretic text doesn't have "brother of" in that verse either.
@@MrEVAQ you sure about that? Then where do all the Protestant translations of the Masoretic get it from?
@@k98killer They add it in in order to resolve the contradiction elaborated in this video. The NIV has a footnote on the verse saying it's not in the Hebrew.
@@MrEVAQ I see. Perhaps I'm getting mixed up, but I recall hearing Dan or another biblical scholar mention the insertion of "brother of" by the Masoretes. Perhaps it was an insertion in a different passage.
I’m no fan of David, any way you slice it. The David and Goliath story is always framed as the little guy versus the big guy, with the little guy winning against innumerable odds. But Goliath came at David with a sword and David used a battle sling; essentially Goliath brought a knife to a gun fight. He didn’t stand a chance.
And Indiana Jones did the exact same thing!
thats how war works. this isnt a knightly duel
@@captionhere19
Actually it was a knightly duel. It was champion against champion, and whoever wins, that side wins the battle. David cheated.
@@stevenbatke2475
Not quite. Indiana Jones was fighting for his life and didn’t seek out the battle with the Arab warrior. David accepted a challenge, best man wins, with every intention of cheating.
@@autonomouscollective2599 yes, but we love our heros when they fight dirty.
[Genesis 1 Elohim vs Genesis 2 Yahweh Elohim]:
"Deus" means "God", "Dea" means "Goddess", and "Dei" could either mean "gods" (plural) or "God's" (possessive) based on context.
The Hebrew counterparts to the Latin above are El, Elah and Elohim. The Hebrews "syncretized" these three titles into all just meaning "El". The sheer amount of biblical contradictions that caused is staggering.
The Elohist uses the possessive context for Elohim (except when referencing the false Elohim).
The Yahwist, Priestly and Deuteronomist use the plural context for Elohim (except when referencing the true Elohim).
What is the heresy of two powers in heaven?
The basic heresy involved interpreting scripture to say that a principal angelic or hypostatic manifestation in heaven was equivalent to God. The earliest heretics believed in two complementary powers in heaven, while later heretics believed in two opposing powers in heaven.
The Bible isn't about El/Theos/Deus or whatever language you want to say the title (not a name) meaning God. The Bible is about Elohim (sons of El).
Good vs evil Elohim,
True vs false Elohim,
Chosen vs adopted Elohim,
Necessary vs contingent Elohim,
Genesis 1 Elohim vs Genesis 2 Yahweh Elohim.
Bibles should note when Elohim is used as plural or possessive. Try reading the NOG translation on Bible Gateway website. Uncensored.
Theology comes from combining two Greek words: Theos, meaning God, and Logos, meaning Word or rational thought.
[The Word is Elohim from Genesis 1]
(not to be confused with Yahweh Elohim, the false Elohim, from Genesis 2)
Compare John 1: 1-5 with Genesis 1: 1-5:
John 1: 1-5
Names of God Bible
The Word Becomes Human
1 In the beginning the Word already existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was already with God in the beginning.
3 Everything came into existence through him. Not one thing that exists was made without him.
4 He was the source of life, and that life was the light for humanity.
5 The light shines in the dark, and the dark has never extinguished it.
Genesis 1: 1-5
Names of God Bible
The Creation
1 In the beginning Elohim created heaven and earth.
2 The earth was formless and empty, and darkness covered the deep water. The Ruach Elohim was hovering over the water.
3 Then Elohim said, “Let there be light!” So there was light. 4 Elohim saw the light was good. So Elohim separated the light from the darkness. 5 Elohim named the light day, and the darkness he named night. There was evening, then morning-the first day.
It’s clear that is was scribal error, “the brother of” was miswritten.
1 chronicles 20:5 fixes this mistake, but as usual Common sense is not common.
2 Samuel 21:19 does not represent an earlier version it represents an error. your reasoning to support the contrary, is heavily flawed and bias. Lahmi is not a semetic name you claim this as if it is definitive, there is no evidence of this. Let’s say there is, you have a lot of interpretations I can say that’s just what the Hebrew people called him or that he was named a semetic name due to various reasons.
Secondly, the claim that “Lahmi” means “my bread” is a speculative assertion, you pass off as objectively true rather linguistic evidence. In Hebrew “lechem” (לֶחֶם) means “bread,” the implication that the suffix “-i” implies possession “my”, is purely speculative.
The rest of the video is also purely speculative as well which is claimed to be objective.
hermeneutics 909
Trump killed goliath,and built the pyramids and knows when Betelgeuse will go supernova
But don't forget to mention he's the most humble person on the planet!
And he'll stare right into that supernova like he did the sun during that eclipse.
its had to believe what a mess you make of this... in 1 Sam 17 David is a youth, he does not have servants and he kills Goliath, there is then a whole long story until we get to 2 Samuel 21, where it describes them fighting a different battle, David is not such a youth and he has servants with him, not the 1v1 duel like 1 sam 17... it says elhanan killed goliath but instantly we can see error right there in that verse, Samuel is now in conflict with samuel, from reading up too now Goliath died long ago, so maybe we can find a clue somewhere else, Chronicles says it was actually his brother and not goliath itself! ok that makes sense now 2 Sam 21 should of said "brother of", then 1 Sam 17 is correct, all the context between 1 Sam 17 - 2 sam 21 would be correct and Chronicals would be correct... but if you say 2 Samuel 21 is not missing "brother of", then that means so so much is wrong, it would mean 1 Samuel 17 is wrong and Chronicals is wrong because you are standing on the authority of 2 Sam even though you think 90% of Sam is wrong !!!! unbelievable, 0 logic in his reasoning.
In 2 Sam 21, Goliath is killed by a leader of David's army named Elhanan, a man who shares his name with another of David's leaders.
This Goliath's brother specifically targeted David a couple battles ago and his other brother was killed by David's nephew (who shares the name of David's best friend and his uncle). These giants are sons of "the" giant, and apparently have beef with David. Having just listed the 4 giants killed by people other than David, the chapter concludes saying that these were killed by David *and* his servants.
So, this Goliath of is definitely the same one that David supposedly killed because they have the same name and share a feature.
Makes sense.
The part about the translation of et is fascinating. Excellent evidence that the record of David existed prior to the Babylonian exile.
Don't forget Goliath had 4 brothers
Dan are you religious atall? If so what faith do you belong to ?
He's discussed it in other videos. In TikTok it's pinned
He's a mormon lol
Apparently timelines in the Bible don't matter anymore. When a story has chapters, different characters and mentions specifically one character from another story much later in life, this means it's the same story. 🙄
They really don't. The whole book is a manufactured work from multiple sources stitched together over centuries. Reading it from Geneses to Revelation expecting it to have been written in that order is naive, unfortunately.
@@xaayer oooh I get it! So "Biblical scholarship" means "not a single word, story, or grouping of words can be taken to mean anything of significance to one another." So why argue that the tav and the het look similar when you can just say "this word doesn't mean anything at all, get over it." 🙄
@@salteris no
@@salteris the Bible is written in ancient Hebrew and Greek. Everything you “know” about the Bible is from a biblical scholar.
@@scambammer6102 🤣 I obviously meant modern Biblical scholars, but good to know the scribes and clergy of the KJV translation were also Biblical scholars as they would clearly disagree with Dan.
Ha HA HA HA!
David's Goliath was a philistine.
2Samuel has a gitthite Goliath - completely different.
Gath was one of the five cities of the Philistine pentapolis. It was a Philistine city. A Gittite was a Philistine.
@@maklelan Says who?
@@AmityvilleFan Everyone. This is just a historical fact. Gath is mentioned as a city of the Philistines several times in the Hebrew Bible as well.
You keep God's law?
Have you ever wondered why Dan always says "the data"? Just as Christians want to control interpretation through calling it "The Bible," Dan wants to mirror the same unified, holistic, presentation by saying "the data". It isn't one, it isn't univocal, and there are various schools of interpretation on "the data" so all the arguments he gives against univocal readings of the Bible can be mirrored back on his own analysis. If he doesn't articulate various schools readings of "the data" it is because he wants to hide behind false univocality.
He says "the data" and "the consensus" because the data is information that's verifiable, and the consensus means that the MAJORITY of scholars agree that this is what it likely means given the data that's available and verifiable. There are other scholars that don't agree (and Dan does mention them in other videos), but also explains WHY the majority of scholars agree and have consensus on the interpretation of the data. He doesn't claim the data is univocal, nor that the interpretations are without disagreements. That's the difference between data and dogma.
@@Mercadian When I ask you to define "scholar" you will automatically limit based on a criteria, yes? Then when I ask you to justify that criteria, you will in a circular fashion point to scholars. It's a tired and boring game.
@@Hegelezeare you attempting to discredit his discussions because they don't agree with your dogma? Is it too much for your faith to accept that there is not univocality?
@Hegeleze lol what are you talking about you just changed the subject of what the commenter said. And it's not circular, there is verifiable data and then there is consensus of interpretation of said data that represent the majority. Luke the commenter before said Dan gives you reasons why this is the consensus. And he agrees with the consensus.if you want to argue a different interpretation of the data, that's what debates are for.
@@Hegelezethe difference between biblical DOGMA versus scholarly opinions on research of verifiable data is that dogma relies on tradition and presuppositions to fit and control the text. Data is data and supercedes tradition
Everyone knows that David killed Goliath. Any 5 year old in Sunday school could tell you that. The reading of it being the brother of Goliath is correct. Give me a break😂.
Thank you for clearing up the king james Bible is Blasphemous