Or there was an assumption of implication. I'm sure this happened in several places several times and we don't know exactly where. The important thing here is build your biblical theology off the meaning of passages, in context, as a party of a whole. Translation idiosyncrasies are everywhere. That's why KJV sucks. Or trust a little Tradition to light the way.
KJV-only people tend to be the most arrogant, self-righteous Christians I've known. It comes from an unexamined confidence in a translation that just isn't what they think it is. Thanks, Dan, for opening a door to shed light on this issue.
@@EricMcLuen Actually yes. I was talking about translations because a girl claimed that Deut. 22:28 wasn't talking about rape, only problem is that all the bible ancient commentators I know believed it was talking about rape.
In short, "my 400+ year old translation supervised by an authoritarian power is much better than modern translations done under the auspices of academic rigor." Ok I got it
We can't just assert non causality here! At least not so casually. God is the ultimate non causal causality in casual parlance, to the extent that you caucus with Christians. Capisce? 😂
We don't know what their cause was, but I'm sure they had one. I suspect their cause was that they were angry with their brother and felt their reason was good enough to not be judged, so they wanted to "clarify".
In my opinion, this is a good example of people trying to soften the radicalism of the text. It's saying don't get angry with other people ever, and some want to come later and say well what if I have a good reason?! Nope. Don't get angry, period
I don't think Jesus meant "Don't get angry ever" but rather meant for us to keep our anger in careful check. God of the bible is a jealous, wrathful god, and Christ himself lost his chill from time to time which would make him the biggest hypocrite ever if he had been teaching everyone to not get angry with anyone ever.
Why is everyone obsessed with taking the Sermon on the Mount as being intended to be timeless dogma and not situation-specific commands that were only really relevant to the political contexts surrounding Jesus' public career?? Of course, Jesus & all his disciples, and all of early Christianity always often got angry with one another. No one prior to SOFT modern western people with PREJUDICE AGAINST heated conflict ever took that passage literally!
@@chadkent327 I can read Middle English no problem and I can speak modern German but I can't read Old English and this fool doesn't know what Old English is. It is not "unlikely" that he could read it, it is certain that he can't. You know what? I'm going to try to learn to read the Gospel of Mark by the end of next year as a result of reading your question.
But he's wearing such a big cowboy hat! Who am I supposed to believe: the educated Bible scholar in the Batman T-shirt, or the KJVO guy in the big hat? Decisions, decisions...
The hat is on brand, actually. Real cowboys in the late 1800s wore derbys, not stetsons. Stetsons became popular with hollywood, which needed the audience to distinguish good/bad guys from a distance: enter laughably big hats (and white/black hats). So he cares about hollywood/KJV, rather than reality.
That doesn’t look someone who would know the difference between old English, Middle English and modern English. Tbh I was surprised he knows that the KJV is a translation and not the original version of the Bible. 😅
The need to be excused from Jesus' teachings never ceases to amaze me. I always liked Chesterton's observation: “The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting. It has been found difficult; and left untried.”
Why is everyone obsessed with taking the Sermon on the Mount as being intended to be timeless dogma and not situation-specific commands that were only really relevant to the political contexts surrounding Jesus' public career?? Of course, Jesus & all his disciples, and all of early Christianity always often got angry with one another. No one prior to SOFT modern western people with PREJUDICE AGAINST heated conflict ever took that passage literally!
I just can't wrap my mind around this. The guy READS the footnote saying that the words were added--he reads it out loud--and promptly announces the exact opposite thing.
It's kind of hard to be bigoted and hateful when you claim to follow someone who commanded you love people, so we'll just forget that part and make up something that let's us be hateful.
Why is everyone obsessed with taking the Sermon on the Mount as being intended to be timeless dogma and not situation-specific commands that were only really relevant to the political contexts surrounding Jesus' public career?? Of course, Jesus & all his disciples, and all of early Christianity always often got angry with one another. No one prior to SOFT modern western people with PREJUDICE AGAINST heated conflict ever took that passage literally!
It’s always sad to see someone refuse to see the obvious truth when it’s right in front of them. The “1611, straight from heaven” crowd is impossible to deal with. Even in conversation among Christians, they don’t argue in good faith.
How I would love to see Mr. Cowboy try to squirm his way around Dan‘s response. I doubt that even Cirque du Soleil performers could accomplish such mental gymnastics.
God knew English would become the lingua franca, and so He provided us with an inspired English translation, and He corrected errors in the Bible that dated back to the earliest manuscripts. /s
I think nearly all of them thought they were fixing errors others had made along the way. Even now when people assert a bunch of extra details to try to fix a Bible plothole, they seem to believe those details were originally there but somehow lost to time. Comparing the Dead Sea Scrolls to the Masoretic texts, it seems the rabbis occasionally made similar little changes, for example making Deut. 32 seem more monotheist, and less like El was giving his to son Yahweh the people of Israel as an inheritance (which is the plain meaning of it that apologists have to spin to unite El and Yahweh as a single character). Their changes are a "corruption" in one sense, but also made the text better align with scripture overall, so I'm sure they thought they were fixing it with those revisions.
Why does the guy wear a hat indoors? Hasn't he read the King James Bible: "For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God"
Could have been added after years of clergy and other ecclesiastical people would get angry and realized they needed an out. Slipping that phrase in now allows people to be angry with others for any reason under the sun, just say it's for a valid cause and everything's now fine.
This is such a cool fact. Yes, there are different, uh, interpretations of certain passages, but we can use data to find the original words of the author. It's still up to us to find the meaning.
Weell, we can determine what are the CLOSEST (of the samples we have) to the original by seeing changes being made and returning to the oldest varieties. But we will never know FOR SURE the original words of the author (meaning the autor of the words i.e. Jesus OR the author of the manuscipts) simply because we don't have either the first written manuscripts nor any way of knowing what Jesus actually said.
It is widely accepted by biblical scholars that the KJV is one of the poorest translations of old manuscripts. And it's odd that God didn't make it so that His words could not be added to, removed or altered over time which absolutely has happened many Many MANY times over the centuries.
My first name is Mark. The King James version of the bible says in Psalm 37v37 "Mark the perfect man ...", so yeah ... KJV is clearly God's preferred version.
I feel like this isn't the most consequential change, but it is hilarious that he honed in on a phrase that was very clearly inserted as a marginal note in Sianaticus. Bro rolled a natural 1 for that lore check.
@roytee3127 I admit in isolation it is a big change. I suppose I was thinking that given the totality of the gospels, including whipping farmers in the temple, and denouncing the people he just healed in Matthew, and his laments about "this unbelieving generation" and so on, there are many examples of righteous anger (and even violence) that are poryrayed as justified within certain situations. So the scribal addition, if anything, makes Jesus less of a hypocrite overall.
@@sparrowthesissy2186 I've never seen it called whipping farmers before. I thought it was fairly clear that the people who were cleared out were those price gouging or otherwise cheating those who came to the temple to fulfill their religious requirements and worship God.
@wartgin Mark 11:15 says he drove out people buying and selling at the temple, the tables of the money exchangers and the seats of those selling doves. They didn't raise doves in the temple itself, so those would have been from people who probably raised and sold doves for a living... i.e. a farmer.
And the way this creator presents it, this isn’t even the classic conservative “Well I grew up with the KJV and they’ll pry it from my cold dead hands. How dare they change the Bible on me!” He introduces the newer translation as the one we’re all supposed to be familiar with. So this video isn’t even making excuses for preferring the KJV over better translations. This guy converted to the KJV because it gives him permission to be angry with anyone he wants.
A side note: For me as a German who didn't grow up with the KJV or any other English Bible but with German Bibles and who knows a lot of verses by heart in German, it's sometimes bewildering what sorts of misunderstandings native speakers of English have fallen prey to due to homonyms/homographs in English translations.
@@BernardBerserker Ja, ist es. Deswegen finde ich es so nützlich, die Bibel in mehreren Sprachen lesen zu können. Verschiedene Sprachen haben unterschiedliche Homonyme und so kann man durch das Nebeneinanderlegen von, sagen wir mal, einer Deutschen, einer Englischen und einer Französischen Übersetzungen manche Missverständnisse vermeiden.
@@samfranck2119 Das klingt vernünftig. Zum Glück gibt es m.W. keine deutschsprachige Entsprechung der KJV Only Bewegung. Und falls doch bei weitem nicht so prominent.
Dan, I was really hoping you’d comment on first wrong thing he said: how he reads the Bible in Old English. No he doesn’t. Old English is the language of Beowulf. The KJV is Early Modern English!
Dunning-Kruger in effect. So very confident and arrogant and yet so very wrong. But at least he reads his bible, which is more than many Christians do. I have lost count of the number of times a Christian has quoted to me something from the bible as a mic drop and then had a look of confusion and panic when asked, where in the bible does it say that?
That guys is definitely from Texas - even his KJV is Big. Team America where tough Xtianity exists - fuck yeah! Real Men be like real angry! Jesus would have had an AR if they existed boys! That guy could almost be a SNL skit.
Okay, I appreciate that information, Dan, but, if I’m being honest, I rather like the KJV, if for no other reason except for its poetic flow. Am I KJV only? No, it’s just the first one I reach for. I also appreciate the Aramaic translation.
there's a great video by TreytheExplainer and he goes into detail about things that were added and taken out of the Biblical texts and what manuscripts we have.
Advice to my fellow Christians out there making youtube content. If you are still learning and studying, do not put yourself out there as an authoritative voice. In all likelihood, you are still a layman. Read and learn. Do not try and run before you can walk.
Hi. Why do I insist on using the KJV of the Bible? Cause I'm a Marlboro Man!! Yeeee-haw! Ok....I guess I commented on his appearance but that wasn't my prime directive. It's about his being able to be a real man and be angry with people instead of one of those passive and meek Christians.
@@What_If_We_Tried Thank you for your kind and generous reply. In his video of a year ago, “What Bible Translation Do I Recommend?,” Dan recommends the New Revised Standard Version and the New Oxford Annotated Bible based on that translation, and other translations of the Hebrew bible, New Testament, and gospels separately. He also mentions the New English Translation. A later video (five months ago) is titled “The New English Translation can be problematic.” Others of his videos critically review the King James Version and the English Standard Version.
Dan also recommends the latest JPS Tanach (aka: Hebrew scriptures), and they have a version that is bilingual (Hebrew / English). Another Tanach that I like, is the Stone Edition (Hebrew-English), but I think they might hold very strongly / biased towards / lean heavily on the Masoretic Text that was produced in the 7th and 10th centuries CE.
If apologists can say, "All prophesies are conditional, unless stated otherwise," I'm sure they can also say, "Jesus would have said 'with or without a cause' if he meant that, we can assume he meant 'without a cause'!"
I'm concerned with his interpretation that the text means passive Christianity. You can't just not be angry. Does he think people have 100% control of their emotions? Perhaps it means that we must do whatever is in our power to make it right. Perhaps it means we have to learn to let God deal with the sins of others. Maybe we need to learn not to judge and to have compassion on each other. None of those things are really passive.
Dan how can I rely on this book for truth since it has been changed so much and we don’t have originals? I was a Christian for 30 years but when I found out the Bible is not reliable I no longer believe. 😢
Does this pertain to a brother in the faith or a family member? What meaning is the creator assuming? That also makes kind of a big difference to doctrine.
I’ll just assume that the “Without a cause” was first added by a scribe with a really annoying brother.
Or roommate. Shared living can be a bitch
Or there was an assumption of implication. I'm sure this happened in several places several times and we don't know exactly where.
The important thing here is build your biblical theology off the meaning of passages, in context, as a party of a whole. Translation idiosyncrasies are everywhere. That's why KJV sucks.
Or trust a little Tradition to light the way.
Dan's textual evidence is convincing but that other guy has a big cowboy hat. Only solution is for Dan to up his hat game.
Dan won the shirt game; helps offset the hat deficit.
All hat, no cattle.
"And the fit for this video has been... a 10-gallon hat."
I vote trilby
@@chrissimpson6978 No. Guy is all hat, no cattle. Dan needs a picture of a picture of a picture of a toy cow.
That guy is all hat, no cattle.
KJV-only people tend to be the most arrogant, self-righteous Christians I've known. It comes from an unexamined confidence in a translation that just isn't what they think it is. Thanks, Dan, for opening a door to shed light on this issue.
For being unalterable, the Bible texts certainly have been altered a lot.
Not that much actually, misstranslations asside. All I say is to never believe that the Bible is inerrant.
Indeed
@ViguLiviu Not so much the translations. But we find different copies of the same text with varying whits, jots, iotas and tittles.
@@ViguLiviu Creating Satan out of a misunderstanding isn't what I would call not much.
@@EricMcLuen Actually yes. I was talking about translations because a girl claimed that Deut. 22:28 wasn't talking about rape, only problem is that all the bible ancient commentators I know believed it was talking about rape.
In short, "my 400+ year old translation supervised by an authoritarian power is much better than modern translations done under the auspices of academic rigor." Ok I got it
An authoritarian power with an axe to grind.
"The Bible is the unalterable word of God." But also "The later insertions of scribes are the word of God."
@@lennierofthethirdfaneofchu7286 but only the ones I like
Truth @@BernardBerserker😅
@@lennierofthethirdfaneofchu7286 Also mistranslations. God guided the pen of the LXX scribe who mistranslated Matthew 7:14.
God can move the hearts of scribes, too. As well as yours or mine. And what God does not want me to do, I can't. So these words are meant to be holy.
@@icollectstories5702 did God forgot something at first and had to change the text later?
Some people insert "without a cause," without a cause.
We can't just assert non causality here! At least not so casually. God is the ultimate non causal causality in casual parlance, to the extent that you caucus with Christians.
Capisce? 😂
@@bensalemi7783 Yeah, well, I don't caucus with them, Might as well go sit on a cactus.
@@bensalemi7783 I need to lie down for a while. 😂
A rebel without a cause.
We don't know what their cause was, but I'm sure they had one. I suspect their cause was that they were angry with their brother and felt their reason was good enough to not be judged, so they wanted to "clarify".
I've met a million versions of that dude, and he is 100% wearing a gun to record that video.
The kind that calls liberals cowards but needs a gun to buy a burger at five guys
Just in case
In my opinion, this is a good example of people trying to soften the radicalism of the text. It's saying don't get angry with other people ever, and some want to come later and say well what if I have a good reason?! Nope. Don't get angry, period
I think that was probably being done with the word was inserted into the text in the first place.
Follower: “But what if I have a good reason?”
Jesus: “Did I freaking stutter?”
@@Jabrwock sarcasm toward your brother is ok
I don't think Jesus meant "Don't get angry ever" but rather meant for us to keep our anger in careful check. God of the bible is a jealous, wrathful god, and Christ himself lost his chill from time to time which would make him the biggest hypocrite ever if he had been teaching everyone to not get angry with anyone ever.
Why is everyone obsessed with taking the Sermon on the Mount as being intended to be timeless dogma and not situation-specific commands that were only really relevant to the political contexts surrounding Jesus' public career??
Of course, Jesus & all his disciples, and all of early Christianity always often got angry with one another. No one prior to SOFT modern western people with PREJUDICE AGAINST heated conflict ever took that passage literally!
"Why do I insist on using the KJV?" Because you don't know any better.
Immediate red flag for me. No Christian is as willfully ignorant as a KJV proponent.
And actively don't want to.
@@BernardBerserkerTrue, but it's his reference to "Old English" that feels like a tent peg being driven into my brain.
@@ballasog would he even be able to read old English? Unlikely.
@@chadkent327 I can read Middle English no problem and I can speak modern German but I can't read Old English and this fool doesn't know what Old English is. It is not "unlikely" that he could read it, it is certain that he can't. You know what? I'm going to try to learn to read the Gospel of Mark by the end of next year as a result of reading your question.
But he's wearing such a big cowboy hat! Who am I supposed to believe: the educated Bible scholar in the Batman T-shirt, or the KJVO guy in the big hat? Decisions, decisions...
😂
The hat is on brand, actually. Real cowboys in the late 1800s wore derbys, not stetsons. Stetsons became popular with hollywood, which needed the audience to distinguish good/bad guys from a distance: enter laughably big hats (and white/black hats). So he cares about hollywood/KJV, rather than reality.
Ohh ohhh ohhhh gor for the hat the hat
Ah fuckit nope evidence wins
Big Hat vs. Big Bat
The King James Bible is not Old English! Beowulf is Old English! It's like calling Shakespeare "Old English."
Well, he's a bible believer, so...
Thank you!
I hate when people say that.
That doesn’t look someone who would know the difference between old English, Middle English and modern English. Tbh I was surprised he knows that the KJV is a translation and not the original version of the Bible. 😅
@@Grauenwolfnobody likes pedants.
The need to be excused from Jesus' teachings never ceases to amaze me. I always liked Chesterton's observation: “The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting. It has been found difficult; and left untried.”
Why is everyone obsessed with taking the Sermon on the Mount as being intended to be timeless dogma and not situation-specific commands that were only really relevant to the political contexts surrounding Jesus' public career??
Of course, Jesus & all his disciples, and all of early Christianity always often got angry with one another. No one prior to SOFT modern western people with PREJUDICE AGAINST heated conflict ever took that passage literally!
@@tsemayekekema2918Aren’t you an fm?
@@xplicitgoofy1015 what is an FM?
"Alright, let's see it."
But Dan, he GUARANTEED YOU! You have to believe him now. 😂
@@jonathonpolk3592 Guarantee = indemnification. Dan needs to present proof of damages and collect on the guarantee.
... or your money back!
KJV-Only is the Flat Earth of Christianity.
I mean, flat earthers are predominantly Christian fundamentalists I believe
This made me genuinely laugh out loud! Thank you so much for that!
I just can't wrap my mind around this. The guy READS the footnote saying that the words were added--he reads it out loud--and promptly announces the exact opposite thing.
The difference between reading and reading comprehension right there
It's kind of hard to be bigoted and hateful when you claim to follow someone who commanded you love people, so we'll just forget that part and make up something that let's us be hateful.
Why is everyone obsessed with taking the Sermon on the Mount as being intended to be timeless dogma and not situation-specific commands that were only really relevant to the political contexts surrounding Jesus' public career??
Of course, Jesus & all his disciples, and all of early Christianity always often got angry with one another. No one prior to SOFT modern western people with PREJUDICE AGAINST heated conflict ever took that passage literally!
This dude LARPing as a cowboy can sure pull off some impressive mental gymnastics
Hey I actually agree with you Dan! 100 spot on in this video, those KJV only folks are wild
That guy based his life on the song Big Iron.
It’s always sad to see someone refuse to see the obvious truth when it’s right in front of them. The “1611, straight from heaven” crowd is impossible to deal with. Even in conversation among Christians, they don’t argue in good faith.
"...in good faith." Very punny.
How I would love to see Mr. Cowboy try to squirm his way around Dan‘s response. I doubt that even Cirque du Soleil performers could accomplish such mental gymnastics.
God knew English would become the lingua franca, and so He provided us with an inspired English translation, and He corrected errors in the Bible that dated back to the earliest manuscripts. /s
@@SpaveFrostKingI know someone who believes something like that.
I really wonder how medieval scribes rationalized altering the text like that.
I think nearly all of them thought they were fixing errors others had made along the way. Even now when people assert a bunch of extra details to try to fix a Bible plothole, they seem to believe those details were originally there but somehow lost to time.
Comparing the Dead Sea Scrolls to the Masoretic texts, it seems the rabbis occasionally made similar little changes, for example making Deut. 32 seem more monotheist, and less like El was giving his to son Yahweh the people of Israel as an inheritance (which is the plain meaning of it that apologists have to spin to unite El and Yahweh as a single character). Their changes are a "corruption" in one sense, but also made the text better align with scripture overall, so I'm sure they thought they were fixing it with those revisions.
D'oheth!!
Why does the guy wear a hat indoors? Hasn't he read the King James Bible: "For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God"
But, but, but,... that's only during worship and church services. You just don't understand.
Oh man, he's gonna be mad at you, brutha!
Could have been added after years of clergy and other ecclesiastical people would get angry and realized they needed an out. Slipping that phrase in now allows people to be angry with others for any reason under the sun, just say it's for a valid cause and everything's now fine.
Thanks Dan.
Dan hits it out of the park every time
Well, the way he’s dressed says it all...
This is such a cool fact. Yes, there are different, uh, interpretations of certain passages, but we can use data to find the original words of the author. It's still up to us to find the meaning.
Weell, we can determine what are the CLOSEST (of the samples we have) to the original by seeing changes being made and returning to the oldest varieties.
But we will never know FOR SURE the original words of the author (meaning the autor of the words i.e. Jesus OR the author of the manuscipts) simply because we don't have either the first written manuscripts nor any way of knowing what Jesus actually said.
Dan- Never stop, never give up, always push forward. THANK YOU!!!
It is widely accepted by biblical scholars that the KJV is one of the poorest translations of old manuscripts. And it's odd that God didn't make it so that His words could not be added to, removed or altered over time which absolutely has happened many Many MANY times over the centuries.
Well said, Brother!
Thanks Dan
Thanks as always!
"Old English" 🤣🤣
My bet is that his brother has stolen his horse.
Or maybe he tried to explain to him how footnotes work.
Anyway, he did something BAD.
i've had this same conversation with folks who've asserted the same claims relating to different passages.
❤❤❤❤❤❤❤ thanks Dan!!!
I don't know if google is getting cheeky here, but this comment has a "translate to English" link beneath it. I'm sure there is good cause.
There is no greater hate than Christian love.
I wonder if Tex here has any cattle 🤔
Is that hat actual working attire, or just an identity marker? I'm leaning hard towards the latter.
@digitaljanus I'm leaning with you
Well, there is a lot of bullsh!t around....
@@alistairmackintosh9412 Hip deep 😁
My first name is Mark.
The King James version of the bible says in Psalm 37v37 "Mark the perfect man ...", so yeah ... KJV is clearly God's preferred version.
In the words of the Great Poet: “Hater’s gonna hate!”
Excellent
This has been a lot of talk of insertion for a Bible class. I need a drink of water and to go lie down.
I feel like this isn't the most consequential change, but it is hilarious that he honed in on a phrase that was very clearly inserted as a marginal note in Sianaticus. Bro rolled a natural 1 for that lore check.
It's a big change. It purports to give Jesus' permission to be angry at anyone and everyone, so long as you can think up a reason.
@roytee3127 I admit in isolation it is a big change. I suppose I was thinking that given the totality of the gospels, including whipping farmers in the temple, and denouncing the people he just healed in Matthew, and his laments about "this unbelieving generation" and so on, there are many examples of righteous anger (and even violence) that are poryrayed as justified within certain situations. So the scribal addition, if anything, makes Jesus less of a hypocrite overall.
@@sparrowthesissy2186 That was probably the reason of the addition
@@sparrowthesissy2186 I've never seen it called whipping farmers before. I thought it was fairly clear that the people who were cleared out were those price gouging or otherwise cheating those who came to the temple to fulfill their religious requirements and worship God.
@wartgin Mark 11:15 says he drove out people buying and selling at the temple, the tables of the money exchangers and the seats of those selling doves. They didn't raise doves in the temple itself, so those would have been from people who probably raised and sold doves for a living... i.e. a farmer.
Another undeniable historical fact, this time from a cowboy. 🤠
In future interactions with men in hats de cowboy, I suggest the "Supercow" fitment.
And the way this creator presents it, this isn’t even the classic conservative “Well I grew up with the KJV and they’ll pry it from my cold dead hands. How dare they change the Bible on me!”
He introduces the newer translation as the one we’re all supposed to be familiar with.
So this video isn’t even making excuses for preferring the KJV over better translations. This guy converted to the KJV because it gives him permission to be angry with anyone he wants.
I'm surprised he didn't call the newer translation "woke"
A side note: For me as a German who didn't grow up with the KJV or any other English Bible but with German Bibles and who knows a lot of verses by heart in German, it's sometimes bewildering what sorts of misunderstandings native speakers of English have fallen prey to due to homonyms/homographs in English translations.
Und ist das nicht umgekehrt auch so?
@@BernardBerserker Ja, ist es. Deswegen finde ich es so nützlich, die Bibel in mehreren Sprachen lesen zu können. Verschiedene Sprachen haben unterschiedliche Homonyme und so kann man durch das Nebeneinanderlegen von, sagen wir mal, einer Deutschen, einer Englischen und einer Französischen Übersetzungen manche Missverständnisse vermeiden.
@@samfranck2119 Das klingt vernünftig. Zum Glück gibt es m.W. keine deutschsprachige Entsprechung der KJV Only Bewegung. Und falls doch bei weitem nicht so prominent.
It will be exactly the same with the German translations
@@gowdsake7103 as I understand it the situation in the US with the KJV pretty special. Dan talked about the circumstances that contributed to this.
Dan, I was really hoping you’d comment on first wrong thing he said: how he reads the Bible in Old English. No he doesn’t. Old English is the language of Beowulf. The KJV is Early Modern English!
.... but the KJV isn't in Old English >.>
Nope The Lindisfarne Gospels were tho
Oh no... that content provider is adding to the words of this book. Surely the plagues of this book will be added to him. 😮
This thing “Stitch incoming” is appearing everywhere. What the heck does it mean?
Great point. The religious right uses the versions that fit their agenda.
Texan Without a Cause
Well-dressed men in Cowboy hats always make me very suspicious.
Dr. McClellan, I would love to hear you discuss the pros and cons of the most common translations of the Bible. 🙂
He's done that in several videos fortunately.
That guy would just say that you're lying and that Greek isn't a real language.
At least the dark night had a cause to be angry ...
Dunning-Kruger in effect. So very confident and arrogant and yet so very wrong.
But at least he reads his bible, which is more than many Christians do. I have lost count of the number of times a Christian has quoted to me something from the bible as a mic drop and then had a look of confusion and panic when asked, where in the bible does it say that?
I'm getting deja vu with this vid.
That guys is definitely from Texas - even his KJV is Big. Team America where tough Xtianity exists - fuck yeah! Real Men be like real angry! Jesus would have had an AR if they existed boys! That guy could almost be a SNL skit.
Okay, I appreciate that information, Dan, but, if I’m being honest, I rather like the KJV, if for no other reason except for its poetic flow. Am I KJV only? No, it’s just the first one I reach for. I also appreciate the Aramaic translation.
Hear Ye: The Dark Knight hath brightenest my day; squibblings of a Christian hath not
I can't believe Cody the Cowboy didn't k-now about Codex Sinaiticus.
there's a great video by TreytheExplainer and he goes into detail about things that were added and taken out of the Biblical texts and what manuscripts we have.
When they say the King James Bible is 'Old English.' 🙄
It never occurs to some people that the older translations aren't the best.
The KJV translation is actually not old: 400 years compared to the NT books about 1900.
Watching that initial clip was baffling. He doesn't even attempt to justify _why_ he favors the the KJV version???
Advice to my fellow Christians out there making youtube content. If you are still learning and studying, do not put yourself out there as an authoritative voice. In all likelihood, you are still a layman. Read and learn. Do not try and run before you can walk.
Wonder if these guys get their brains at Wal-Mart
Well, I haven't got any siblings, so I guess it's ok for me to get angry...
👏👏👏
I trust the Dark Knight over the Cowboy Hat every time.
Dan you need a ten gallon hat. I’m just *sayin* 😂
Language changes with time and meaning of words changes too.
Few things are less scholarly than an American sitting indoors wearing a cowboy hat.
If that creator doesn’t realize he’s just playing semantical games to advance his beliefs, he’s not very bright.
I just can’t take seriously a grown man in a cowboy costume, even though i grew up in Texas.
I like how Cowboy Christian makes a finger-gun at the very end,
Hi. Why do I insist on using the KJV of the Bible? Cause I'm a Marlboro Man!! Yeeee-haw!
Ok....I guess I commented on his appearance but that wasn't my prime directive. It's about his being able to be a real man and be angry with people instead of one of those passive and meek Christians.
So Dan, which do you think is the best English bible translation? For a general reader who only reads English?
Luckily Dan has recorded several videos about this.
@@What_If_We_Tried Thank you for your kind and generous reply. In his video of a year ago, “What Bible Translation Do I Recommend?,” Dan recommends the New Revised Standard Version and the New Oxford Annotated Bible based on that translation, and other translations of the Hebrew bible, New Testament, and gospels separately. He also mentions the New English Translation. A later video (five months ago) is titled “The New English Translation can be problematic.” Others of his videos critically review the King James Version and the English Standard Version.
@@rachelmann7488 Thanks for listing them, as I cannot read Koine Greek, and can only read vocalized Hebrew (-but my understanding is limited).
Dan also recommends the latest JPS Tanach (aka: Hebrew scriptures), and they have a version that is bilingual (Hebrew / English).
Another Tanach that I like, is the Stone Edition (Hebrew-English), but I think they might hold very strongly / biased towards / lean heavily on the Masoretic Text that was produced in the 7th and 10th centuries CE.
Old English or Olde English?
How do you say 'more hat than cattle' in anglo saxon?
I have friends that only use the KJV and it’s like…uhhh…ok!
Is a cowboy hat +10 to gullibility?
0:05 Did promises to show us the most common mistake regarding the Bible, and then proceeds to argue KJV only... at least he kept his promise.
What do you think is the best translation?
Regarding English translations, search Dan's videos, he's made at least two I think.
... King James Version isn't Old English. It isn't even Middle English. @.@
If apologists can say, "All prophesies are conditional, unless stated otherwise," I'm sure they can also say, "Jesus would have said 'with or without a cause' if he meant that, we can assume he meant 'without a cause'!"
Man, these old KJVO "arguments" get old after awhile, don't they?
I'm concerned with his interpretation that the text means passive Christianity. You can't just not be angry. Does he think people have 100% control of their emotions? Perhaps it means that we must do whatever is in our power to make it right. Perhaps it means we have to learn to let God deal with the sins of others. Maybe we need to learn not to judge and to have compassion on each other. None of those things are really passive.
I'm angry at that costume he's wearing, seriously, cowboy clothes and the king James bible, what year are we in 😳
It’s not “Old English.” KJV is in Early Modern English. If it were in Old English, we wouldn’t even be able to read it.
more likely- when is it NOT?
He literally read the explanation in the footnote, and completely misunderstood it. Clearly no idea about manuscripts and source texts.
Dan how can I rely on this book for truth since it has been changed so much and we don’t have originals? I was a Christian for 30 years but when I found out the Bible is not reliable I no longer believe. 😢
Does this pertain to a brother in the faith or a family member? What meaning is the creator assuming? That also makes kind of a big difference to doctrine.