As an ex-lds member, I have found it fascinating to listen to Dan’s scholarly approach to the Bible. He definitely makes the Bible more interesting. I’ve learned more about the Bible in the short amount of time I’ve listened to Dan’s content than I have in my 30+ years attending church. Thanks for having him as your guest!
Terrific, digestible summary of how Israelite religion went from recognizing the existence of gods other than Yahweh to insisting that Yahweh was now the one and only god in the Universe; how Yahweh was likely seen originally as a storm god who was an offspring of El, the ultimate god in that pantheon; and who Asherah was and how she came to be written out of the Hebrew Bible.
Ok this was fantastic! I really enjoyed this interview and the perspective of Dan from an LDS point of view. I have followed his tiktoks and his podcasts and I really enjoyed being able to relate to what he was saying from an LDS perspective. I would love to hear another interview on his views of and data on the BoM!! Thank you for putting this together!
On Mormon Stories interviewing Dan, he recommended the New Oxford Annotated Bible NRSV with Apocrypha and I've been going through that and it is amazing what I have learned like how to translators figure out passages that are missing. And textual Criticism, 2400 pages. I read Ehrman's books also. Amazing two scholars.
@@kenpcaDr. Wallace is a theologian. A theologian uses subjective v. objective arguments. Lots of these folks out there who think their opinions are fact. Historians do use some opinions but their research is not based on opinions, but theologians such as Dr. Wallace or William Lane Craig base their "facts" on the Spirit. I don't and I won't. And I was a Christian for most of my life, until I read and really studied the Bible, its history, and the history of Christianity from both agnostics and college divinity professors such as Amy-Jill Levine of Vanderbilt Divinity School in Nashville.
Wow, this interview with LDS scholar Dan McClellan is one the best things I've heard on the FaithMatters podcast - among all the excellent episodes they've already done. I've been a member for a long time, but I learned a lot from this. The title isn't really very descriptive. It's really about understanding the Bible better.
I appreciate the "broad spectrum of understanding being sought" as the focal point of the questions posed during the discussion(s). There truly are no hard questions when seeking to learn and understand someone else's perspective and understanding. Great guest(s)! Thank you for your contribution to my learning!
I enjoyed the discussion. I loved Dan’s emphasis on putting the two great commandments at the center of our discipleship. A few things I’m curious to know his thoughts on: •What is the standard of truth by which he judges right & wrong, good & evil? •What are his fundamental beliefs? Or what Theological propositions does he hold to? •In the context that he used the word “power” throughout the interview, I’m curious to know how he views history & hierarchies. Postscript: I’ll pay 4 green rectangles to a charity of Faith Matters’ choice if they have Dan on again for another episode to dive deeper into these topics.
So many thanks to Dan McClellan. My Dan fandom led me to videos like this and the one on Mormon Stories. Like so many outside the LDS community, I had unfortunate preconceptions about the LDS. Now I am down a deep rabbit hole on the official LDS website reviewing the theology, practices, and scriptures unique to LDS tradition. I have a newfound respect, curiosity, and genuine affection for my siblings in Christ in the LDS church.
So great. I listened to this 3x before taking notes. I have 3 A5 pages of notes. I am no longer a believer and love the closing remarks- am I trying to win an argument or grow closer to someone. That’s my wife. Mixed faith marriage and pimo ward attendance can be so lonely and isolating. I hope that talking about this with my wife can better help her see my perspective. Not trying to change her. I just want to be seen.
We can even see the theophoric traces of their chief god El in our names; Gabriel, Michael, Daniel, etc. As Yahweh rose to power, we see Yah names; Jeremiah, Josiah, Isaiah, etc.
The most secular footnotes I’ve yet seen come from the vanilla NABRE (2011) Bible. It is Catholic but from the footnotes you’d think it’s all about scholarship because unlike in our scriptures the notes do not try to link the text to Catholic theology and teaching.
The prophet has always had direct connection with God. And Dan is not a great source for understanding especially when his goal is to change doctrine to fit the world's needs. Accountability should be towards God, not the world.
@@ladyashington8135 which prophet are we talking about? The one who wrote I can sell my daughters into slavery or the ones who wouldn’t let blacks go to the temple? Or the one marrying 14 year old girls? Just so I understand who is getting gods word. Thx
@@ladyashington8135 ahh yes. If only we could go back to the good old days when woman were property and I could take my wife’s slave to have a child. Oh how god has given us such a book to live by.
Every Southern Baptist on the planet has a personal relationship with God, and Charistmatics have long conversations with God daily. You could ask them.
Dr. McLellan, who is absolutely amazing, has a tendency to ramble down paths of rhetoric until he hits the point in the way he wants. It's actually really interesting to watch him do that, but for the sake of time I think they had to cut some of that out.
He most likely was not to the first Christians. Even in the Trinity he is supposed to be a separate person in the Godhead iirc. Gospel John's view of Jesus is more debatable, but there is a good argument to be made that he didn't think Jesus was the same person as God (there's also a good argument to be made the other way, though I lean towards thinking John had his own peculiar Christology compared to the other books in the NT)
I don’t see Latter-day Saints as cherry picking, rather a learning process, yet the learning is dependent on revealed interpretations. Although Academics play a role, their over confidence in their studies can led them astray.
That overconfidence isn’t an isolated hubris of academics but of humans generally. Church leaders are not exempt. Bro. Brigham is the gift that keeps giving in that regard. And fundamentalist beliefs against evolution, blacks and priesthood etc. show plenty of folly due to lack of further light. Academics and church leaders are in the work of finding further truth. I wouldn’t give anyone carte blanche inerrancy. Even Joseph Smith wished people would have given him the same right afforded to others of having an opinion without it being some quote from God.
I believe it relates to his thesis about the Bible not being univocal. This is true of LDS scripture as well. It seems clear that sometimes "Jehovah" is used to mean God the Father in both the New Testament and early LDS writings. Joseph Smith and other did not claim Jesus to be the god of the Old Testament until after 1840, and it is not clear that was understood by most of the New Testament authors. While scholars point out that Jehovah started out as the son of El in preexilic writings, by the Hellenistic period the two names are conflated as being one entity. So since the Jews of the New Testament used El and Jehovah as being the same person, who the Christians call "God the Father" or "Father in Heaven", the name "Jehovah" is used for Heavenly Father. I do not think Dan is claiming Joseph Smith is wrong, just that the terminology is not always consistent. Modern readers often add their current understanding to past scripture. That is what Dan is warning about.
@@gordianknot9595 Unlike the Bible the Book of Mormon does have a unified translator, which certainly blurs the edges of the vocality. Still, Nephi has a different voice than Jacob, who differs from Mosiah, who differs from Moroni.
@@gordianknot9595 I am not sure what you think an example would look like. Google "textual analysis of Book of Mormon chapters", since the example are really too long to easily quote in a comment. Different authors use different techniques and vocabulary. Beyond that different authors have different rhetorical goals. Nephi stresses his own lawful authority (which is also important to Alma), while Jacob and Mosiah seem to care more about morality of the their audience. Moroni's focus is on testifying of Christ.
Bible for normal people podcast (who has had Dan on) would say we all cherry pick, but at least some of us can say we do it carefully and considerately.
And BTW, no scholar now believes that there was a Johannine community that created the gospel of John as Dan asserted. He even admits that the idea is outdated (i.e., now rejected) but he still relies on it. Why?
That sounds like YOUR beliefs dictate how you read the Bible. Now if you think about it, this means you are doing the thing you are accusing Dan of. There is another possibility. The data over dogma approach leads us toward more progressive views of the world.
@@proximityportal Telling a data over dogma approach that leads to more progressive views of world tells that you are biased and trying to fit bible into progressive view. Lot of Biblical scholars won't share Dan's point of view . Do more research .
@dbirdwell The basic meaning of cherry picking is; picking out and citing verses, that you feel support a particular belief, while ignoring other relevant verses that may, would or could run counter to that belief. The irony is, most believers do this as the result of genuinely not knowing of, or understanding the significance of, these other verses, while Dan does this as a deliberate policy. Dan says it is not permissible to look at all verses, that address a particular issue/subject, on the grounds that he believes the Bible is not universal. If you are not looking at all relevant verses, you are cherry picking. A specific example would be, the assertion that God lied about Adam dying on the day he sinned, because Adam didn't die on the very day he sinned. Dan rejects & won't allow, other biblical information (ie. verses) that gives the answer to this question, to be looked at.
Revealed interpretations-- you mean those people who claim they talk to/hear from God. You can't really argue with them, can you? You would be arguing with God.
*Negotiating is negating* … which is fine. But when you say,” for our own purposes,” you are negating part of the text. Deuteronomy 4:2 (Israel,) do not add to what I (Moses) command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands that Yahweh Elohim of your fathers is giving you. [That would make blasphemy of all Bible books after Deuteronomy that contain commands.] (The statue of Idrimi from Aleppo 900 years earlier contains a curse for anyone who changes the text on the statue. ua-cam.com/video/SQtwqSahQxM/v-deo.html ) Deuteronomy 12:32 Whatever I (Moses) command you, you shall be careful to do; you shall not add to nor take away from it. According to the verses below, every change, including every translation, of the Bible is blasphemy and every biblical author after Proverbs could be considered a liar, according to Proverbs 30:5-6. Proverbs 30:5-6 Every word of Elowah is tested; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. Do not add to his words, or he will reprove you, and you will be proved a liar. Psalms 12:6-7 The words of Yahweh are pure words as silver tried in a furnace of land, purified sevenfold. *You, Yahweh, will keep them. You will preserve them (starting) from this generation forever/indefinitely.* {lə·‘ō·lām} Matthew 5:17-18 Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. Truly I tell you, until the sky and the land pass away, not one iota or keraia (part of a Greek letter) will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Revelation 22:18 I (Jesus) warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to that person the plagues described in this scroll Yes, we all negotiate. I attempt to learn what the text meant to the authors and how their audience would have perceived the text. I *don’t* do it to then say, “So should we.”
In reference to the ironic title of the video: Dan's a master at cherry picking the bible to serve social justice critical theory. Some of his work seems thorough and thoughtful, but most of it is postmodern bullshit.
Dan "data over dogma" McClellan loves to remind everyone that the Bible has no inherent authority or meaning and that all interpretations of the Bible are a result of our own negotiations with the text... except in his case where his negotiations with the text are 100% objective and accurate. It's only a strange coincidence that Dan's purely objective negotiations with the text happen to align perfectly with modern secular leftist assumptions, beliefs, and values.
How has no one challenged Dan on the cowardice of his position to make arguments against the veracity of the Bible and never once speak about the defense of the books he claims to be authoritative from God!? He says not to cherry pick… great, I agree. But the LDS book of faith is so historically and theologically outlandish that any attempt to defend it is anti-scholarship and against all reason. The metaphysics of God being a corporal being but hears our prayers. The fact that spirits are derived from God having physical relationships with heavenly concubines and their offsprings are the indwelt spirit of the physical person. Or that God occupies a planet named Kolob in the middle of a galaxy which we know to be a black hole where the space-time curvature is so great and the gravity so strong, light can’t escape. What about the 5500 Greek manuscripts we have to show what was written in the first century is almost verbatim what we have today since the predicate of the LDS church is that the scriptures we so corrupted that God had to re-reveal his plan of salvation. Dan never mentions any of this. He is a coward and a charlatan. I would rather take financial advice from Charles Ponzi than take anything Dan says seriously.
God in the Bible is a corporeal being. So all the things you mentioned just fill in the details. Also, the Bible does not say Yahweh hears all our prayers. In fact, Psalm 22 implies the opposite and that we have to be glad it is helping other people instead.
@@UniDocs_Mahapushpa_Cyavana so God is corporal… is he omnipresent? Is he Omniscient as in having both the metaphysical existence and mind to hear all prayers simultaneously? I don’t know if it is possible to explain the utter absurdity of what you just said. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that God is physical. It was Joseph Smith who claimed God was physical. And if God is physical, he is composed and contingent. Who composed Him? And if He is composed, why not worship the one who made him… you know, since you will all become Gods? Dan Mclelland is the perfect example of why LDS and scholarship don’t mix. It is the same reason why Islam and Scholarship don’t mix. He recognizes that any and all up front “scholarship” applied to LDS teachings leads to disastrous results. You don’t know what you are talking about.
1@@Daexusnol give me some links of where he is criticizing all the insane and obviously false bullshit in the book of mormon (Indians being jews, the false history, the "old english" Smiths pedophilia + adultery and so many others) or how about just on on the topic of Smith being a con artist and how this has been proven to be true. I would love to see those nonexistent videos. Oh and before you say "thats not his expertise" its not geology biology dna etc and he regularly debunks yokels using such fields where he lacks expertise. I find this man to be a hypocrite and dishonest. Asking others to ignore his lies while pointing out the lies of others.
@@bobsmith-hd2zrhe’s a biblical scholar, not a BOM one. Can’t take a dentist seriously unless he practices oncology as well? If you want to hear his thoughts of BOM origins, you can listen to his interview on Mormon Stories.
@@cinnimini404 he constantly address things outside his field of study, like geology, evolution, astronomy and almost every other field of science. But he will never do the same for the religion that pays his bills. Its patently dishonest. Specially when the book of Mormon is such a joke. For your analogy to work he would be a dentist that only talks bad about Colgate while ignoring the problems of Crest, while working for Crest. No actually, while ignoring the problems of an offbrand wannabe Colgate created by a known con artist.
Dan doesn't like to talk about his faith or his personal beliefs. I didn't watch so I don't know if he does in this video but I find it somewhat disturbing that he hides his personal beliefs behind his scholarship. I don't dispute any of the scholarship he puts forth but I gleen from his videos and certain comments he's made that he despises Trump as well as "right-wing conservatism" having claimed that they use the Bible to propagate bigotry, misogyny and such. Dan is a fine scholar but he also has an agenda beyond his scholarship that he carefully hides. Another personal belief of mine is that Dan is only culturally Christian. I don't think he believes in God at all. If this is the case I think he should say so but I don't believe he would because he may believe that this would interfere with his social media audience, many of whom are firm believers in a literal God. What would they think if they knew that their favorite Bible scholar is an atheist? I'm speculating but my hypothesis has legs.
Very disappointed in Dan’s strong incorporation of critical theory and power dynamics that he has been promoting. Many of his views are absolutely contrary to the current leadership of the LDS church per his TikTok videos. To imply that the scriptures are tools to subjugate vs to guide our lives for the better is par for the course with the current academic mind set. that apparent is being used. With scribes there could be such a scenario but with the restoration we have a better understanding or do we? Though a great academic and intelligent individual I’m just not personally pleased in Dan’s take and also feel there is no push back on his ideas. I’m actually so bummed that it appears FM is buying into these post modern concepts that are rooted in Marxist ideals. It’s all centered around power dynamics and the narrative that the gospel is about social justice vs personal accountability. I love the Chavez’s but it appears these ideas and ideologies are becoming the key focus within the FM community. Sorry to be negative and nothing personally against Dan. Again, I just don’t agree with his interpretations and feel that his political and post modern ideological is steering his opinions. This can be problematic with members of the church trying to manage their relation with the church when someone of Dan’s stature is creating a gap vs narrowing them. The very thing he is against in cherry picking the scriptures is being used in juxtaposition to prop up and defend his frankly liberal narratives and speculation that are actually quite controversial. Example: If abortion isn’t in the Bible then he is okay with it. Really? This is the MO that is used to get around prophetic authority? Wouldn’t need prophets nor a church with his narratives. Perhaps Holland’s request for more musket is actually needed. Btw…where was the defense of Holland when he was attacked by outside and some in when that musket comment was made. It was truly sickening in the hyperbolic responses that came from many. BTW because something is not good for you and you are told so doesn’t mean the messenger doesn’t love you.
Scripture is 100% a tool to control people. Not our fault you lack the intelligence on this. It is proven that religion makes people stupid. And you lost the argument when you said marxist ideals. You don't even know wtf Maxist ideology is.
And still, as always, nothing presented proves a REAL god actually exists, or that any particular set of beliefs are correct and true, above all other 3,999 brands of world religions...
@@TheRealBeanEnthusiast No sh*t Sherlock! Just a friendly reminder, that all religions make nearly identical claims, yet not a single one has any definitive, verifiable proof to support any of those claims...
@@cameron9643 You should stop listening to Frank Turek. Leviticus 25:44-46 CLEARLY mentions taking slaves of the surrounding gentiles and passing them down to their children to be slaves FOREVER. These slaves were NOT released every seven years and were NOT working off debt...
No, Israelites had some protection but if your slaves were foreigners you treated them as possessions without any rights and could be kept captive until they died.
Why do Exmormons and atheists love Dan ? Because he is one. John Dehlin the biggest anti Mormon and proud atheist is big fans of Dans’ work. Thinking the church is a social club (like he does) makes sense why he is so critical on the church and the faithful members.
dan has addressed this. he said that he isnt, nor has ever claimed, to be an atheist. also dan mcclellan talking about how theres a big social factor in religion isnt just him talking about his experience with god, thats literally just a fact about religion
@@todjohnman7347 he has stated he isnt an atheist, and that he has faith. the only thing going on here is that he can understand the difference between his faith and what the evidence states
Dan's assertion that people are not really seeking to understand the biblical documents on their own terms so that they can actually understand -- and live in accordance with what it teaches -- is self-defeating. He simply rules out taking the biblical documents on its own terms with the overbroad assertion that everyone is negotiating the text and they do so merely to effect a power dynamic. His power dynamic is merely his own dogma based on the Hegalian-Marxist based philosophies. He is merely asserting his own preferred stance and denigrates those who seek to actually seek to understand and follow the bible. Dan's claims regarding the biblical texts and homosexuality and Paul's "sexual ethic" are seriously in error. I will be addressing his claims in the future. Paul doesn't teach what Dan asserts.
Although I enjoy many of insights he is teaching many of his teachings is “academic” centered and not actually accurate, but is a “learned arrogance” proclaiming their own doctrines.
@@tawneenielsen4080 are you agreeing that Dan is accusing others of negotiating with the Text and he is doing the same thing? Or does his “academics” allow him to represent his “interpretations” as facts enabling him to say others are “negotiating”
@@smuggythornton One cannot avoid negotiating with a text. Even reading each other's comments, we make inferences and assumptions. Because most of us here are Americans familiar with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, there's less needed, but it still constantly happens. A married couple in a heated argument know each other very well, but can still misread each other. Dan's scholarship means he has a firmer grasp of the social and religious beliefs and priorities of the era, but he is still capable of the same sort of misunderstanding we can have in a random Sunday school class, without the opportunity to ask a clarifying question.
@@TheFranchiseCA So does he really? Does academic's really have a firm grasp? While I believe academics buy into their own interpretations, I will not concede that his academic arrogance gives quite as much power to re-interpret or negotiate as he believes it does. His quickness to dismiss others interpretations is suspect. Plus i would give inspired interpretations at least equal if not more footing, Expert's time and time again in our society are shown to be either mistaken or mislead or very least over confident in their findings.
I think that depends if you believe in a tri-Omni Christian God or not. And if you take the bible as literally true. If you do, God: - Knew and chose the outcome before he started - Selected the initial properties of Adam and Eve (loyalty, credulity, intelligence, etc) - Selected the environment they were put in - intentionally allowed the snake access to them unsupervised He could have changed any of the parameters to achieve a different outcome if he wanted to. So I don’t think you can get past God being 100% responsible for the state of his creation under that model. What do you think?
As an ex-lds member, I have found it fascinating to listen to Dan’s scholarly approach to the Bible. He definitely makes the Bible more interesting. I’ve learned more about the Bible in the short amount of time I’ve listened to Dan’s content than I have in my 30+ years attending church. Thanks for having him as your guest!
Yet he is a member of the LDS church and looks through the bias lens of it.
That biased lens certainly doesn’t materially affect his scholarship.
@@Whosoever446If there is bias from Dan it seems pretty negligible
@@Whosoever446 Interesting. Can you point to any particular thing Dan said that is biased specifically toward LDS doctrine?
How about reading the book and thinking yourself.
Although I’m an atheist, I find this subject and Dan’s approach really fascinating
He’s the most honest theist ever.
I could listen to Dan all day. Thank you for having him. I hope you have him back.
Please do one of these with him quarterly, or regularly. Great!
The church needs many, many more Dans, and far, far fewer Bible literalists, fundamentalists, and prooftexters.
And far fewer presupps.
Yes it does! He has given me a new lease on the Bible I never imagined I'd get to
Dan has the BEST way of explaining the Bible. I totally appreciate his scholarship!
I love the chronological scholarly explanation of the Bible. Awesome!
Fantastic Episode! I hope Dr McClellan comes to our podcast as a guest soon!!
I have waited so long for this 🤣
Terrific, digestible summary of how Israelite religion went from recognizing the existence of gods other than Yahweh to insisting that Yahweh was now the one and only god in the Universe; how Yahweh was likely seen originally as a storm god who was an offspring of El, the ultimate god in that pantheon; and who Asherah was and how she came to be written out of the Hebrew Bible.
Ok this was fantastic! I really enjoyed this interview and the perspective of Dan from an LDS point of view. I have followed his tiktoks and his podcasts and I really enjoyed being able to relate to what he was saying from an LDS perspective. I would love to hear another interview on his views of and data on the BoM!! Thank you for putting this together!
He's not so much an lds view as an academic view, though he proclaims lds.
You find him lacking on faithful adherent to true principles, taught by our latter day prophets.
On Mormon Stories interviewing Dan, he recommended the New Oxford Annotated Bible NRSV with Apocrypha and I've been going through that and it is amazing what I have learned like how to translators figure out passages that are missing. And textual Criticism, 2400 pages. I read Ehrman's books also. Amazing two scholars.
I recommend dr daniel wallace
@@kenpcaI am currently trying to get through Francesca Stavrakoupoulou's book, "God, and Anatomy." Dan studied under her.
@@kenpcaDr. Wallace is a theologian. A theologian uses subjective v. objective arguments. Lots of these folks out there who think their opinions are fact. Historians do use some opinions but their research is not based on opinions, but theologians such as Dr. Wallace or William Lane Craig base their "facts" on the Spirit. I don't and I won't. And I was a Christian for most of my life, until I read and really studied the Bible, its history, and the history of Christianity from both agnostics and college divinity professors such as Amy-Jill Levine of Vanderbilt Divinity School in Nashville.
Wow, this interview with LDS scholar Dan McClellan is one the best things I've heard on the FaithMatters podcast - among all the excellent episodes they've already done. I've been a member for a long time, but I learned a lot from this.
The title isn't really very descriptive. It's really about understanding the Bible better.
Absolutely phenomenal!!!!
I appreciate the "broad spectrum of understanding being sought" as the focal point of the questions posed during the discussion(s). There truly are no hard questions when seeking to learn and understand someone else's perspective and understanding. Great guest(s)! Thank you for your contribution to my learning!
I enjoyed the discussion. I loved Dan’s emphasis on putting the two great commandments at the center of our discipleship.
A few things I’m curious to know his thoughts on:
•What is the standard of truth by which he judges right & wrong, good & evil?
•What are his fundamental beliefs? Or what Theological propositions does he hold to?
•In the context that he used the word “power” throughout the interview, I’m curious to know how he views history & hierarchies.
Postscript: I’ll pay 4 green rectangles to a charity of Faith Matters’ choice if they have Dan on again for another episode to dive deeper into these topics.
So many thanks to Dan McClellan. My Dan fandom led me to videos like this and the one on Mormon Stories. Like so many outside the LDS community, I had unfortunate preconceptions about the LDS. Now I am down a deep rabbit hole on the official LDS website reviewing the theology, practices, and scriptures unique to LDS tradition. I have a newfound respect, curiosity, and genuine affection for my siblings in Christ in the LDS church.
Thank you, dr Dan. So.. so good!
Grateful =] Thanks for sharing, @FaithMatters!
Just came across this. Fantastic discussion!
Ah snap! Yes! I was hoping this connection would be made. Dan is a beast!
The beast ⁉️👀
Maybe near it
Thank you for the spiritual feast.
This was a very informative interview. Great job!
So great. I listened to this 3x before taking notes. I have 3 A5 pages of notes. I am no longer a believer and love the closing remarks- am I trying to win an argument or grow closer to someone. That’s my wife. Mixed faith marriage and pimo ward attendance can be so lonely and isolating. I hope that talking about this with my wife can better help her see my perspective. Not trying to change her. I just want to be seen.
Best wishes to you both!
We can even see the theophoric traces of their chief god El in our names; Gabriel, Michael, Daniel, etc. As Yahweh rose to power, we see Yah names; Jeremiah, Josiah, Isaiah, etc.
And many Baal names at specific times. Jerubabal...Zerubabal. No Baal names in the B of M though. In Lehi's time Baal was hated and marginalized.
@Paul Black I thought Zorobabel was a Persian name? "Seed of Babylon"
I read that the Baal names end in Bel: Jezibel, Isabel, etc
Amazing
The most secular footnotes I’ve yet seen come from the vanilla NABRE (2011) Bible. It is Catholic but from the footnotes you’d think it’s all about scholarship because unlike in our scriptures the notes do not try to link the text to Catholic theology and teaching.
thank you for this comment, i will be looking into this!
Dan is a great source for understanding. I just wish the church had leaders with a connection with god to give answers to these question…BEFORE 2023.
The prophet has always had direct connection with God. And Dan is not a great source for understanding especially when his goal is to change doctrine to fit the world's needs. Accountability should be towards God, not the world.
@@ladyashington8135 which prophet are we talking about? The one who wrote I can sell my daughters into slavery or the ones who wouldn’t let blacks go to the temple? Or the one marrying 14 year old girls? Just so I understand who is getting gods word. Thx
@@ladyashington8135 ahh yes. If only we could go back to the good old days when woman were property and I could take my wife’s slave to have a child. Oh how god has given us such a book to live by.
Every Southern Baptist on the planet has a personal relationship with God, and Charistmatics have long conversations with God daily. You could ask them.
@HelloSaints I would love to hear your thoughts on this video.
Shout out to Ned Flanders!
Dan the man!
The world need Dan. It's time to deconstruct religious institutions.
What was the name of the books he recommended?
Thanks
This video has many hard cuts. What happened during that time?
Dr. McLellan, who is absolutely amazing, has a tendency to ramble down paths of rhetoric until he hits the point in the way he wants. It's actually really interesting to watch him do that, but for the sake of time I think they had to cut some of that out.
@@captkillionsparrow Release the extended cut! :D
My guess is that he discussed topics that would give the LDS leaders less power. Just a guess though.
He left the Latter Day Saints. It was the LDS that put out that native americans are a lost israelite tribe false doctrine.
So Jesus is NOT Jehovah of the Old Testament?
Jesus is the Jehovah of the old testament
Is Jesus the Canaanite storm god? Probably not.
He most likely was not to the first Christians. Even in the Trinity he is supposed to be a separate person in the Godhead iirc.
Gospel John's view of Jesus is more debatable, but there is a good argument to be made that he didn't think Jesus was the same person as God (there's also a good argument to be made the other way, though I lean towards thinking John had his own peculiar Christology compared to the other books in the NT)
This woman is now so interested in Asher’s but Dan Peterson wrote about this 23 years ago and the info has been here for some time.
That look!!
🌞
I don’t see Latter-day Saints as cherry picking, rather a learning process, yet the learning is dependent on revealed interpretations. Although Academics play a role, their over confidence in their studies can led them astray.
That overconfidence isn’t an isolated hubris of academics but of humans generally. Church leaders are not exempt. Bro. Brigham is the gift that keeps giving in that regard. And fundamentalist beliefs against evolution, blacks and priesthood etc. show plenty of folly due to lack of further light.
Academics and church leaders are in the work of finding further truth. I wouldn’t give anyone carte blanche inerrancy. Even Joseph Smith wished people would have given him the same right afforded to others of having an opinion without it being some quote from God.
Kinda shocked he Dropped Bart’s name on this.
Anyone have the link to where Dan says that Jehovah ISN'T Jesus? I'm quite surprised by that. Any help would be appreciated.
I believe it relates to his thesis about the Bible not being univocal. This is true of LDS scripture as well. It seems clear that sometimes "Jehovah" is used to mean God the Father in both the New Testament and early LDS writings. Joseph Smith and other did not claim Jesus to be the god of the Old Testament until after 1840, and it is not clear that was understood by most of the New Testament authors.
While scholars point out that Jehovah started out as the son of El in preexilic writings, by the Hellenistic period the two names are conflated as being one entity. So since the Jews of the New Testament used El and Jehovah as being the same person, who the Christians call "God the Father" or "Father in Heaven", the name "Jehovah" is used for Heavenly Father.
I do not think Dan is claiming Joseph Smith is wrong, just that the terminology is not always consistent. Modern readers often add their current understanding to past scripture. That is what Dan is warning about.
@@brettmajeske3525 wow, thank you for this reply. i will write this down even. i appreciate your feedback!
@@gordianknot9595 Unlike the Bible the Book of Mormon does have a unified translator, which certainly blurs the edges of the vocality. Still, Nephi has a different voice than Jacob, who differs from Mosiah, who differs from Moroni.
@@gordianknot9595 I am not sure what you think an example would look like. Google "textual analysis of Book of Mormon chapters", since the example are really too long to easily quote in a comment.
Different authors use different techniques and vocabulary. Beyond that different authors have different rhetorical goals. Nephi stresses his own lawful authority (which is also important to Alma), while Jacob and Mosiah seem to care more about morality of the their audience. Moroni's focus is on testifying of Christ.
@@gordianknot9595 Again, they are all seen through the view of the same translator/redactor.
Bible for normal people podcast (who has had Dan on) would say we all cherry pick, but at least some of us can say we do it carefully and considerately.
is it mormonism
And BTW, no scholar now believes that there was a Johannine community that created the gospel of John as Dan asserted. He even admits that the idea is outdated (i.e., now rejected) but he still relies on it. Why?
No need to Cherry Pick. It's a fiction.
But he clearly does cherry pick because he's clean shaven which the Bible says is sin.
It's more of trying to fit into progressive narrative . I saw his videos and those didn't convince me .
That sounds like YOUR beliefs dictate how you read the Bible. Now if you think about it, this means you are doing the thing you are accusing Dan of. There is another possibility. The data over dogma approach leads us toward more progressive views of the world.
@@proximityportal Telling a data over dogma approach that leads to more progressive views of world tells that you are biased and trying to fit bible into progressive view. Lot of Biblical scholars won't share Dan's point of view . Do more research .
You mean we shouldn't cherry pick like Dan does, who would have thought.
How does he cherry-pick? Give an example?
@dbirdwell
The basic meaning of cherry picking is;
picking out and citing verses, that you feel support a particular belief, while ignoring other relevant verses that may, would or could run counter to that belief.
The irony is, most believers do this as the result of genuinely not knowing of, or understanding the significance of, these other verses, while Dan does this as a deliberate policy.
Dan says it is not permissible to look at all verses, that address a particular issue/subject, on the grounds that he believes the Bible is not universal.
If you are not looking at all relevant verses, you are cherry picking.
A specific example would be, the assertion that God lied about Adam dying on the day he sinned, because Adam didn't die on the very day he sinned.
Dan rejects & won't allow, other biblical information (ie. verses) that gives the answer to this question, to be looked at.
Dan, in 2023 do you believe the Bible is true or false?
the stick of judah and stick of jesse bable
Revealed interpretations-- you mean those people who claim they talk to/hear from God. You can't really argue with them, can you? You would be arguing with God.
Slow down! You're talking so fast I cannot understand a word you are saying.
45:48 Yes there is a book for everybody and all times. The Quran that no body can change.
Yawn.
*Negotiating is negating*
… which is fine. But when you say,” for our own purposes,” you are negating part of the text.
Deuteronomy 4:2 (Israel,) do not add to what I (Moses) command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands that Yahweh Elohim of your fathers is giving you.
[That would make blasphemy of all Bible books after Deuteronomy that contain commands.]
(The statue of Idrimi from Aleppo 900 years earlier contains a curse for anyone who changes the text on the statue. ua-cam.com/video/SQtwqSahQxM/v-deo.html )
Deuteronomy 12:32 Whatever I (Moses) command you, you shall be careful to do; you shall not add to nor take away from it.
According to the verses below, every change, including every translation, of the Bible is blasphemy and every biblical author after Proverbs could be considered a liar, according to Proverbs 30:5-6.
Proverbs 30:5-6 Every word of Elowah is tested; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. Do not add to his words, or he will reprove you, and you will be proved a liar.
Psalms 12:6-7 The words of Yahweh are pure words as silver tried in a furnace of land, purified sevenfold. *You, Yahweh, will keep them. You will preserve them (starting) from this generation forever/indefinitely.* {lə·‘ō·lām}
Matthew 5:17-18 Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. Truly I tell you, until the sky and the land pass away, not one iota or keraia (part of a Greek letter) will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.
Revelation 22:18 I (Jesus) warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to that person the plagues described in this scroll
Yes, we all negotiate. I attempt to learn what the text meant to the authors and how their audience would have perceived the text. I *don’t* do it to then say, “So should we.”
Nobody cherry picks more than a mormon like Dan
can you provide the example?
@@jitsuwa6718 He supports mormonism which denies the scriptures. Mormons teach that we become gods. It teaches that Jesus is satans brother
In reference to the ironic title of the video: Dan's a master at cherry picking the bible to serve social justice critical theory. Some of his work seems thorough and thoughtful, but most of it is postmodern bullshit.
Dan "data over dogma" McClellan loves to remind everyone that the Bible has no inherent authority or meaning and that all interpretations of the Bible are a result of our own negotiations with the text... except in his case where his negotiations with the text are 100% objective and accurate. It's only a strange coincidence that Dan's purely objective negotiations with the text happen to align perfectly with modern secular leftist assumptions, beliefs, and values.
Data over Dogma is his marketing tagline to say ignore the Holy Spirit.
@@FishermensCorner Yep, and to ignore the past two thousand years of traditional Biblical interpretation.
As woke as it gets
@@aw2971 thoughtful-faith is based in solid thinking and fully supports the family proclamation and basic faith faith promoting principles.
lol what do you even mean, lil bro?
@@CoryBoring my name isn’t little nor my last name Bro, simple thoughtful-faith is an excellent alternative to faith matters.
@@smuggythornton A misunderstanding, Mr. Thornton. I was replying to WilliamD, who posted a silly "wokeness" comment.
@@CoryBoring thanks for the clarification 👍
How has no one challenged Dan on the cowardice of his position to make arguments against the veracity of the Bible and never once speak about the defense of the books he claims to be authoritative from God!? He says not to cherry pick… great, I agree. But the LDS book of faith is so historically and theologically outlandish that any attempt to defend it is anti-scholarship and against all reason. The metaphysics of God being a corporal being but hears our prayers. The fact that spirits are derived from God having physical relationships with heavenly concubines and their offsprings are the indwelt spirit of the physical person. Or that God occupies a planet named Kolob in the middle of a galaxy which we know to be a black hole where the space-time curvature is so great and the gravity so strong, light can’t escape. What about the 5500 Greek manuscripts we have to show what was written in the first century is almost verbatim what we have today since the predicate of the LDS church is that the scriptures we so corrupted that God had to re-reveal his plan of salvation. Dan never mentions any of this. He is a coward and a charlatan. I would rather take financial advice from Charles Ponzi than take anything Dan says seriously.
There are a few of us who have.
At least he admits his biases. And none of that disproves his scholarly arguments
@@heckinbasedandinkpilledoct7459 wrong and wrong. I've directly confronted his "scholarship", and he either blocks performs gymnastics.
God in the Bible is a corporeal being. So all the things you mentioned just fill in the details.
Also, the Bible does not say Yahweh hears all our prayers.
In fact, Psalm 22 implies the opposite and that we have to be glad it is helping other people instead.
@@UniDocs_Mahapushpa_Cyavana so God is corporal… is he omnipresent? Is he Omniscient as in having both the metaphysical existence and mind to hear all prayers simultaneously? I don’t know if it is possible to explain the utter absurdity of what you just said. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that God is physical. It was Joseph Smith who claimed God was physical. And if God is physical, he is composed and contingent. Who composed Him? And if He is composed, why not worship the one who made him… you know, since you will all become Gods?
Dan Mclelland is the perfect example of why LDS and scholarship don’t mix. It is the same reason why Islam and Scholarship don’t mix. He recognizes that any and all up front “scholarship” applied to LDS teachings leads to disastrous results. You don’t know what you are talking about.
Cant take the man seriously when he refuses to do the same with the book of Mormon
He does lol
@@Daexusnol that is a lie
1@@Daexusnol give me some links of where he is criticizing all the insane and obviously false bullshit in the book of mormon (Indians being jews, the false history, the "old english" Smiths pedophilia + adultery and so many others) or how about just on on the topic of Smith being a con artist and how this has been proven to be true. I would love to see those nonexistent videos.
Oh and before you say "thats not his expertise" its not geology biology dna etc and he regularly debunks yokels using such fields where he lacks expertise.
I find this man to be a hypocrite and dishonest. Asking others to ignore his lies while pointing out the lies of others.
@@bobsmith-hd2zrhe’s a biblical scholar, not a BOM one. Can’t take a dentist seriously unless he practices oncology as well? If you want to hear his thoughts of BOM origins, you can listen to his interview on Mormon Stories.
@@cinnimini404 he constantly address things outside his field of study, like geology, evolution, astronomy and almost every other field of science.
But he will never do the same for the religion that pays his bills.
Its patently dishonest. Specially when the book of Mormon is such a joke.
For your analogy to work he would be a dentist that only talks bad about Colgate while ignoring the problems of Crest, while working for Crest.
No actually, while ignoring the problems of an offbrand wannabe Colgate created by a known con artist.
Dan doesn't like to talk about his faith or his personal beliefs. I didn't watch so I don't know if he does in this video but I find it somewhat disturbing that he hides his personal beliefs behind his scholarship. I don't dispute any of the scholarship he puts forth but I gleen from his videos and certain comments he's made that he despises Trump as well as "right-wing conservatism" having claimed that they use the Bible to propagate bigotry, misogyny and such. Dan is a fine scholar but he also has an agenda beyond his scholarship that he carefully hides. Another personal belief of mine is that Dan is only culturally Christian. I don't think he believes in God at all. If this is the case I think he should say so but I don't believe he would because he may believe that this would interfere with his social media audience, many of whom are firm believers in a literal God. What would they think if they knew that their favorite Bible scholar is an atheist? I'm speculating but my hypothesis has legs.
Very disappointed in Dan’s strong incorporation of critical theory and power dynamics that he has been promoting. Many of his views are absolutely contrary to the current leadership of the LDS church per his TikTok videos. To imply that the scriptures are tools to subjugate vs to guide our lives for the better is par for the course with the current academic mind set. that apparent is being used. With scribes there could be such a scenario but with the restoration we have a better understanding or do we? Though a great academic and intelligent individual I’m just not personally pleased in Dan’s take and also feel there is no push back on his ideas. I’m actually so bummed that it appears FM is buying into these post modern concepts that are rooted in Marxist ideals. It’s all centered around power dynamics and the narrative that the gospel is about social justice vs personal accountability. I love the Chavez’s but it appears these ideas and ideologies are becoming the key focus within the FM community. Sorry to be negative and nothing personally against Dan. Again, I just don’t agree with his interpretations and feel that his political and post modern ideological is steering his opinions. This can be problematic with members of the church trying to manage their relation with the church when someone of Dan’s stature is creating a gap vs narrowing them. The very thing he is against in cherry picking the scriptures is being used in juxtaposition to prop up and defend his frankly liberal narratives and speculation that are actually quite controversial. Example: If abortion isn’t in the Bible then he is okay with it. Really? This is the MO that is used to get around prophetic authority? Wouldn’t need prophets nor a church with his narratives. Perhaps Holland’s request for more musket is actually needed. Btw…where was the defense of Holland when he was attacked by outside and some in when that musket comment was made. It was truly sickening in the hyperbolic responses that came from many. BTW because something is not good for you and you are told so doesn’t mean the messenger doesn’t love you.
Scripture is 100% a tool to control people. Not our fault you lack the intelligence on this. It is proven that religion makes people stupid. And you lost the argument when you said marxist ideals. You don't even know wtf Maxist ideology is.
And still, as always, nothing presented proves a REAL god actually exists, or that any particular set of beliefs are correct and true, above all other 3,999 brands of world religions...
and that wasnt the point of this video
@@TheRealBeanEnthusiast No sh*t Sherlock! Just a friendly reminder, that all religions make nearly identical claims, yet not a single one has any definitive, verifiable proof to support any of those claims...
Except slavery back then was way different then now.
It wasn't as different as you think.
@@Ejaezy yes it was Obi wan. Thats how people paid their debt.
@@cameron9643 You should stop listening to Frank Turek. Leviticus 25:44-46 CLEARLY mentions taking slaves of the surrounding gentiles and passing them down to their children to be slaves FOREVER. These slaves were NOT released every seven years and were NOT working off debt...
@@cameron9643That was only one kind of slavery.
No, Israelites had some protection but if your slaves were foreigners you treated them as possessions without any rights and could be kept captive until they died.
Why do Exmormons and atheists love Dan ? Because he is one. John Dehlin the biggest anti Mormon and proud atheist is big fans of Dans’ work. Thinking the church is a social club (like he does) makes sense why he is so critical on the church and the faithful members.
dan has addressed this. he said that he isnt, nor has ever claimed, to be an atheist. also dan mcclellan talking about how theres a big social factor in religion isnt just him talking about his experience with god, thats literally just a fact about religion
@@TheRealBeanEnthusiast he like John Dehlin are smart enough to not state it, it hurts their brand… but its clear.
@@todjohnman7347 he has stated he isnt an atheist, and that he has faith. the only thing going on here is that he can understand the difference between his faith and what the evidence states
Dan's assertion that people are not really seeking to understand the biblical documents on their own terms so that they can actually understand -- and live in accordance with what it teaches -- is self-defeating. He simply rules out taking the biblical documents on its own terms with the overbroad assertion that everyone is negotiating the text and they do so merely to effect a power dynamic. His power dynamic is merely his own dogma based on the Hegalian-Marxist based philosophies. He is merely asserting his own preferred stance and denigrates those who seek to actually seek to understand and follow the bible.
Dan's claims regarding the biblical texts and homosexuality and Paul's "sexual ethic" are seriously in error. I will be addressing his claims in the future. Paul doesn't teach what Dan asserts.
Nah, you are just flat out wrong dude. Accept it. Get over it.
So have you addressed this yet or nah?
Although I enjoy many of insights he is teaching many of his teachings is “academic” centered and not actually accurate, but is a “learned arrogance” proclaiming their own doctrines.
Note he uses “negotiation” with the text. Interesting so does Dan negotiate with the revealed text?
Data over dogma
@@tawneenielsen4080 are you agreeing that Dan is accusing others of negotiating with the Text and he is doing the same thing?
Or does his “academics” allow him to represent his “interpretations” as facts enabling him to say others are “negotiating”
@@smuggythornton One cannot avoid negotiating with a text. Even reading each other's comments, we make inferences and assumptions. Because most of us here are Americans familiar with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, there's less needed, but it still constantly happens. A married couple in a heated argument know each other very well, but can still misread each other.
Dan's scholarship means he has a firmer grasp of the social and religious beliefs and priorities of the era, but he is still capable of the same sort of misunderstanding we can have in a random Sunday school class, without the opportunity to ask a clarifying question.
@@TheFranchiseCA
So does he really? Does academic's really have a firm grasp? While I believe academics buy into their own interpretations, I will not concede that his academic arrogance gives quite as much power to re-interpret or negotiate as he believes it does. His quickness to dismiss others interpretations is suspect.
Plus i would give inspired interpretations at least equal if not more footing,
Expert's time and time again in our society are shown to be either mistaken or mislead or very least over confident in their findings.
What is God's responsibility for the state of His creation?
I think that depends if you believe in a tri-Omni Christian God or not. And if you take the bible as literally true.
If you do, God:
- Knew and chose the outcome before he started
- Selected the initial properties of Adam and Eve (loyalty, credulity, intelligence, etc)
- Selected the environment they were put in
- intentionally allowed the snake access to them unsupervised
He could have changed any of the parameters to achieve a different outcome if he wanted to. So I don’t think you can get past God being 100% responsible for the state of his creation under that model.
What do you think?
@@boboak9168 I agree whole-heartedly.