@@hjk7833 But his was wrong and talking nonsense or do want to cry because your feelings got hurt? That content creator was talking crap to push his agenda. That behaviour is disgusting.
I’ll always love the verse in 1 John: “if you know a brother has need and close off your intestines to him, how is God’s love in you?” I’ll vote for a literal reading every time because they’re hilarious 😂
My childhood pastor spoke from the pulpit often about the extant manuscripts. He presented their existence, especially the Dead Sea scrolls, as if they were 1) the original autographs & 2) plentiful enough in totality that we can "know" we had the authentic "Word of God as transmitted by God Himself" in our (Protestant) KJV Bible. It came as a complete shock to me after I became an adult to find out otherwise. In my mind, I pictured entire ancient scrolls. When I first realized how many manuscripts were merely fragments, I was rattled. I'm 69, & it's only within the past ten years that I've discovered that we do not have any truly original writings, & that the variations among the manuscripts can be quite distinct. I'm amazed at what my fundamentalist pastors & teachers taught us in order to keep their dogma about the nature of the Bible intact.
Although my area of expertise is middle French not Biblical Greek/Hebrew, this is a good explanation of the complexities of translation period, especially from archaic language into modern.
Yes that is true. Trying to speak a different language than your mother tongue is an experience in this process . You are trying to speak words from say French that are approximate to English.
As much as I enjoy the sense of Schadenfreude every time Dan -dunks on- attempts to educate that young man, it’s depressing that he is so resistant to learning ANYTHING. Has he even finished high school yet? 🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️
You have identified my gripe with religion in general and the evangelical community in particular. Smugly wrong and insisting everyone live as they do or be damned.
His youth is a good excuse for his misplaced confidence in his weak understanding of biblical scholarship. Many who are much older than him are guilty of spouting similarly ignorant arguments. Many young people wake up to their own ignorance and educate themselves, far more often than older people. This creator will hopefully find humility, educate himself more deeply, and perhaps even become a good biblical scholar someday.
Short answer: No. Long answer: No, and you should also not trust anyone telling you that you should trust the Bible while they themselves haven't learned any of the original languages the Bible was written in it and familiarized themselves with the culture of the era, because they are less serious about their love of the Bible and their God than I was about my love of Dragonball Z back in high school.
Also just... history. If they are not familiar enough with verified archaeology and historical reconstructions to recognise that the Bible accounts regularly differ from the evidence and seems to contain a lot of identity-construction mythology, then they are not sufficiently informed to comment on the reliability of the Bible's content.
The question is problematic. “Is the Bible trustworthy?” The Bible, as Dr. M likes to say doesn’t hold characteristics except that which the reader or readers give to it (i.e. authority). The Bible should be read critically even within faith claims/convictions (I say this as a practicing Christian). Its trustworthiness or untrustworthiness is something that is brought to the text of the Bible and not “found” within the text. Contradictions of various details represents the Bible’s composite nature and something we should take seriously, but represent different scribal communities at different times reflecting their own theological, cosmological convictions, and life concerns that were different than those writing prior to that time and then different to those writing after them. We have the benefit of a set and codified textual tradition wherein we can recognize and wrestle with these. It has no bearing on whether the text itself is “trustworthy,” which is not an applicable question to an ancient collection of texts. These same questions are not applied outside of scholarly communities to other ancient texts because they do not have the same place within our socio-cultural milieu (visibly anyway). The cultural standing of the Bible in the West has led to these kinds of questions, but they miss the mark.
@@user-kv1po2dm5j Agreed, even still. As far as translation is concerned, I think my claims still stand. Even if we approach the text with suspicion or to deconstruct it, we will have to trust someone, somewhere along the way. The Bible is not the result of a single person, but has always been a community endeavor that requires trust in those and our own communities. No matter our approach. Even applied to the question of bible translation “can we trust translations of the Bible”, the question still misses the mark in my opinion.
@@BrentJohnson-ki7jy I agree with your position on the question “is the Bible trustworthy?” ". What we hope for future interpretations is that the secularization of societies will make it possible to go beyond the particular and let's say ideological or dogmatic attitude that certain societies/groups show when faced with so-called "sacred" texts. A Sanskritist friend encounters a similar (not identical) problem with Hindu and Buddhist texts. I may be a naive optimist but I believe that future negotiations with these texts will result in more tolerance and acceptance of otherness. I wrote in one go and realize that my response should have been shorter.😄
The question is: Can it be trusted for WHAT? Life advice? Existence of the Divine? Literary studies? Cultural studies? Historical studies? Trust for WHAT? I have to ask this because the answer varies.
I love the mic drop at the end. I think biblical scholarship is really underrated, Dan does an excellent job in communicating this to a wider audience.
I believe they have had similar problems with The Necronomicon. And BOY, if you get the wrong translation of a passage from THAT book, all KINDS of trouble can materialize! And don't EVEN get me started on shoggoths......
See?! With only three comments, we already demonstrate that there are two completely different schools of thought: the cosmic horror, versus the splat monster.
@@TheNeverbornThey do exist. I am in full time congregational ministry and encourage curiosity and critical thinking. I also encourage church members to use their voices to offer disagreement/dissent. However, I lament, this is not common.
I thought by now, this boy would have been chastened by his gaffes, flubs, and goofs! Oh no! His sensibilities tell him he's doing just fine! This type of persistence towards error is a serious signal.
That same creator has repeatedly demonstrated his defenses of his interpretations of the Bible. Asserting facts not in evidence is common on that channel and his intended audience just goes with it. Most of those people won't listen to Dr. McClellan, or any other scholar who uses facts that don't support their dogma.
@@beowulfschmidt6031 No. It's the other way around: *Most people like you and others of Dan's amen choir who want to listen to him, or any other "biblical scholars" like Bart do so because their heavily biased talking points (presented as facts) support their dogma.*
I wish that I had had access to someone like Dan when I was in my 20's. They might have been around but I only had my own echo chamber. There was so much assumption in my world that the scholars were all in agreement because univocality must mean that they could only all come to the same conclusions. I also now recognize just how inadequate the training (if any, in some cases) was for so many of the people that I looked to for an understanding of the bible and by extension how it applied to my life and how I should live it.
Again, this is why we need to seek having a personal testimony (actual personal spiritual experiences with God) and then seek knowledge and wisdom of how to share and decern it, and not making assumptions about even your own experiences. I appreciate an honest look at the scriptures, thankyou Dan, very wise.
@@yohei72 It's the best they've got, let them have it. At least they know they might be wrong (unless they think they can't be because they experienced pure love).
This reminds me of the probably now widespread meme of a pyramid, at the bottom of which we can read "High school diploma". With each layer, it goes up one level, to associate diploma, then graduate, then master's, then PhD, and culminates with "Some dude who watched a video on UA-cam and called it research". Thank you, Dr McClellan for taking the time to set the record straight and "putting it to rest once and for all".
As someone who watches anime, both subbed and dubbed, I can _definitively_ say translators don't always do the best job as they sometimes put their own spin on the source instead of trying to convey the gist or meaning of the original.
Great point! What comes to mind is Brock in Pokemon. In the original Japanese show, he’s eating sushi. But in the 4Kids dub, he’s eating jelly-filled donuts. Why? Because the 4Kids interpreters felt jelly-filled donuts resonated more with their target audience than sushi. So sometimes dub translators choose is this “dynamic equivalence” which can actually have drastic implications on the integrity of the characters, plot lines, and other factors integral to the story.
That kid is a product of his environment. He is following in the footsteps of such arrogant pricks as Winger, WL Craig, and that Australian guy who accosts college kids.
I don’t know, this kid can at least later on claim to have been young when he made the videos. You have older guys like the guys off of IP and VOR that are flat out trying to sound highly informed but end up sounding like Terrance Howard and Graham Hancock!!
I try not to let his snotty deliver color my judgement of his intellectual failure. Despite this, I find myself trying to hand him a kleenex through the screen so he can wipe his nose.
Oh my, Dan having to debunk trash AI … When I was little, they used to joke that artificial intelligence was no substitute for real stupidity, but they've nailed it.
The more I learn about how many different scriptures of the same scriptures that are different from each other, and how it seems none of them are from the period of any actual eye witnesses, the more I'm convinced that there is absolutely no way we will ever know the truth until we die and "if" we end up standing in front of the Creator, then and only then will we know. How far off am I for thinking this? I was raised that all of this was from eye witnesses of people that walked with Jesus. Then I learn that they are unsigned, no real way of knowing who wrote what, and even that most was written at least 150+ years after his death.
I would love for you to make a video explaining in depth your slogan of data over Dogma. I think I agree with the premise, but i wonder what the implications are and how far you are willing to take them. And as part of that, what role does tradition play? I ask this because according to orthodox and catholic views, the bible, as well as the church are authoritative. I think your great at pointing out the flaws of protestant thinking because of the dogma of sola scriptura. But how do you navigate the idea of church authority and tradition? I appreciate your work Dan, and i feel that knowing your thoughts on this would help me appreciate your work even more. Thanks Dan!
You would expect an immortal, omnipresent, all-powerful, all-knowing and totally benevolent diety to be an ever so slightly better communicator. And why would it need ghost writers, translators and nutcakes in pulpits and on street corners to explain stuff in greater detail and clarity?
This is slightly off-topic, but when listening to Dr. McClellan in this video, I was focusing more his discussion of the problems of translation per se, rather than just Bible translation. Translation is an immensely difficult skill, very complicated, and decisions have to be made all the time on all manner of problems, not just those Dr. M pointed out here. For an excellent and entertaining book about the art and practice of translation, read David Bellos, "Is That a Fish In Your Ear?" (Bellos is not a Bible translator - he generally translates novels from French and Russian into English.) (Hopefully, you get the reference to the babel fish from "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" in Bellos' title.)
@@yohei72 I can look at Quran's like the Birmingham Quran and read it. So your lies do not affect me. Alhamdulillah for Islam and original Arabic language. I highly recommend subscribing to ancient and rare book collectors to realize how wrong you truly are. I can read all of the qurans that they post up. You can't say that about almost any Bible. On top of that every rare book collector knows how unbelievably corrected the Bible is. Every scholar knows this. Every theologian with a degree knows this. I highly recommend getting an interest in one of those three things.
Dan was pretty generous with the translation from translation issue. But we know that even the NRSVUE has its words because of the KJV, because the Volgate because the oldest greek, which if Papias is to be believed wasn't the original Hebrew of Matthew, which appears to have some direct citations of the greek translation of Isaiah 7. So Hebrew->greek->hebrew->greek->latin->early modern english->late modern english. I wouldn't trust a food menu or instruction manual that underwent all that.
"Greet one another with a holy kiss"? Isn't a former head of the Spanish Football Association currently on trial for trying to "greet" the the World Cup winning Spanish Women's football Captain with a kiss, that she didn't want?
Kiss on the mouth between men 😳 was the rule in the old USSR. I remember watching it on tv when I was a kid. I didn’t know that the tradition went as back as early Christianity.
@@lysanamcmillan7972 According to the Bible, it still could've been considered holy. Remember that, in those days, a woman's prior consent, or even desire, wasn't considered necessary. BTW, religious believers feel the need to retrofit modern morality and ethics into ancient texts. That's because their notion of God is in many ways light-years from that of the ancient Hebrews.
I dont like to talk about "the bible", because we have many. Jews dont believe in the Nt. There were much more than 4 gospels and in different languages. And what does "trust" even mean? That it comes from God? No. That it was written by the traditional authors ? No. The bibles arent even univocal. We have to judge each book on its own and it seems to me that the 6 or 7 letters out of 13 of Paul are the only books/letters written by the traditional author out of 66 to over 90 books in all of the bibles. But the problem is, Paul as a person is not reliable or trustworthy.
But the Church Fathers believed he was at the time. Inspiration being questioned in scripture is a post modern problem, as most of these issues were settled during various Church Councils over the centuries. That's how the Bible ended up canonized to begin with.
@@gabbygood6813Who says Jesus trusted Paul? Oh wait - Paul said it. The same Paul who argued with the actual apostles - and brother! - of Jesus. The same Paul who hardly if ever actually quoted the teachings of Jesus, and whose own teachings contradicted Jesus'. The same Paul whose companions disagreed with and stopped traveling with him. Yeah, thats proof enough for me that Jesus trusted Paul. 🙄 Smh...
I realize the "translation of a translation" criticism doesn't apply today, when translators have been able to work from hebrew/aramaic/greek manuscripts for centuries, but wasn't that how the bibles pre-Vulgate were produced? Like: I'd always been taught Jerome's whole project in the Vulgate was to fix the errors that had crept in by checking the versions of his day against the older manuscripts they were just starting to get access to in the 14th century.
To be fair, 15 year olds never have anything important to say. It is possible for them to be correct on an issue, but they find themselves there merely by chance.
Doesn't this again demonstrate another weakness of AI? Bible Translation involves many, many choices be made by Human Translators. While AI might make faster decisions, how many of its decisions will be as considered as those of a conscientious Human?
And who's to blame for there needing to be translations? God, of course, because he got pissed off at the builders of the Tower of Babel and made everyone speak different languages. Even though he would have known how many problems he would create by doing so. DUH, God!
After watching the very language I have spoken since my first word change drastically over my life time I can confidently say that all sides of this argument are guessing. The difference is some Christians just ask God about it and listen to what he has to say on the topic. So my recommendation for Christians is to ask God. My recommendation for non-Christians is to ask God about it, and everything else for that matter.
Hearing directly from God is far more important than trusting the Bible, and any direct revelation commands trump the words of the Bible if they are in conflict with one another.
@@EatHoneyBeeHappy Forget Jesus. Anything--be it god, political party, country, friend, lover, the other voices in your head, anything--that asks you to kill your children is not worthy of worship. That you can't see that is terrifying.
If Jesus wants my kids dead, then he can kill them himself. If he's truly God, then he doesn't need me or any human to do anything for him. In fact, he could just spare me, my partner and kids, by not giving me kids in the first place Oh wait, I forgot - your book of Revelation portrays Jesus as a vergeful, murderous god. So then he would probably love nothing more than to see me snuff the light out of my kids, for his sake. This has to be the sickest comment I've read yet. Smh... .
If not mistaken Wallace has that same assumption - that the original must be preserved in the extant variations. But even if that were true how do you KNOW what the original was among those variations? So no we don't have nor do we know what the original was! Also, anyone remember the sources for the 3 day return of the soul to the body doctrine?
If I understand correctly, the difference between formal and dynamic is where the cultural lens of the reader is applied. Formal requires the reader to understand the cultural context of the writer and mentally translate the text into the reader's culture. These translation strive to be cultural neutral with respect to the reader. The acerbic curmudgeon within me points out that it might be better to teach the reader the original language and culture and then tell the reader to read the original text for herself! Dynamic tries to apply the cultural lens during the translation process. But this renders a text that must not outlive the culture for which it was translated.
How significant are the differences, if one rejects the ideas of divine inspiration and univocality? Is it like the bible edition that accidentally left “not” out of a commandment, or are the differences more an academic discussion versus something that affects the everyday bible student?
Leaving translation aside, there are several different versions of the Bible because there a several different lists of books that make up the Bible or canons.
And one reason why the printers of the Protestant Bible decided to get away from the Greek Old Testament, erroneously called the Septuagint (LXX) was because it had so many irreconcilable variants. This is because the Greek collection of books were not systematically translated but spuriously translated between the 3rd century and the time of Origen without much regard for fidelity. Moreover the oldest Hebrew Tanack we have outside of the incomplete collection of the Dead Sea Scrolls is the Aleppo codex written in the 10th century. William Propp who did an all sources translation of Exodus with an in depth discussion of the variants prefers the Masoretic text over other texts the overwhelming majority of time for non-theological reasons. We can imagine that a 10th CE reproduction is better and the much older LXX makes us ponder how bad the Greek translations were. Theology plays a role in the growth of textual variants of the text. While the Jewish Orthodoxy (specifically Masorites) that punctuated the MT were effected by anti Semetic polemics, they have tended to preserve better the text. Whereas Christian’s who maintained the LXX were frequently looking for proof text in the Old Testament and this affected their ability to faithfully translate the meaning of the text.
Thanks for your clarifying functional vs formal translation. I went to college at an evangelical seminary for three years and i'm lretty sure it was never explsined to me that way. It is possible that i just read "word for word vs meaning for meaning" into whatever explanation i was giving since it was something i engaged with a lot as a language interpreter, but either way i'm glad to be corrected. I dont know if you ever answer questions from the comments, but could you clarify the source on your reading of theopneustos? After a quick glance online i've only found a couple pages talking about it, which makes me, and I would expect it to show up a bit more if it was the consensus view. Obviously it doesnt always work that way but I'm just curious where it comes from and how prevalent it is/among who
The Dunning-Kruger effect is strong with this one. 🤣 This apologetic content creator gives truth to the oft-misunderstood saying that a little knowledge - ie, ignorance - is a dangerous thing.
I am not sure trust will be best because it seems to involve intention as if the biblical writers are expecting an audience of the far future. The "trust" just comes from modern day people, while being raised by the interpreted doctrine of the more recent authorities like the Catholic church or Protestant church, the rest is just projections to align the literature with modern understanding of the world. So, what is to trust? It's like trusting the Epic of Gilgamesh (Poetry like Palms) with The Code of Hammurabi (ancient Babylonian laws) following the traditions of being raised in a near east culture around them along with related literature, convincing myself that they apply to a modern day setting. Even if the ancient writers try to be universal, the never account for cultural shifts. An example, is the Bible pro-racism and believes black people are cursed by God because of the Mark of Canan or Curse on the Canaanite because of Ham or since while are mentioned in the Bible but never spoke of the curse of having dark skin, the racist narrative is just a mere projection? Sure, there is xenophobia, but is race a merit as in one race better than others. The closest is the Hebrews being God's chosen people but are white supremacists Hebrews, which, ironically, to the minimum, a handful of them will detest because it involves the association with Jews. While white Supremacists are antisemitic, why does God value them as a master race but has the Hebrews (Jewish people) as his chosen. Christianity is still no excuse because salvation is given to the Jews first, then the Gentiles Romans 1:16.
While i think your "dunking" videos are well-done and informative (and I am thankful to found your channel!), I would try to stay away from condescension. I understand the want of "obliterating" channels making ill-informed videos and spreading Biblically questionable ideas, but IMHO The Spirit dwells in truth, not in condescension. But that's just my perspective.
Since Yahweh consistently makes sense as a nation, it can also mean scripture is God's life. Which makes sense. For example the laws of Mexico 🌯are part of what makes the nation of Mexico exist and not just be a random set of lines on a map. Christians always forget the entire point of the New Testament *IS* the Kingdom of Heaven. Though it would be weird for Paul to make such a coherent point, given how he usually is...
@@Noneya5555 Within the Bible ✝ itself it makes sense. You can even use the scientific 🧪 method for this by testing Bible passages and seeing if they are logically coherent if Yahweh is a nation. Whether or not this applies to reality is another question entirely.
I am far more likely to accept the words of someone like Dan McClellan than most Christian apologists out there on social media. I personally think many of them don't have the knowledge required to speak on these topics, but are more about gaining views, subs, and likes from those they have duped into thinking them "an authority". Now the kid in this video that McClellan critiqued is just parroting bad theology, and appears to just be reading someone else's words. Biblical Scholarship is good to watch.
The Bible can be trusted for whatever good you can glean from it. The Bible is almost entirely made up of oral stories and traditions, opinions, some history and genealogy, over many centuries. Love God, our creator and father. Love, serve and forgive one another, and don't judge. If you can only get that out of the Bible, you've got the most important message.
Can the Bible be trusted.....you did a fine job discussing the intricacies of what is available for interpretation however being uneducated myself , Can the Bible be trusted please answer the question ?
The apologist's attitude is based (beyond the propagation of his dogmas) on a common point that I find among many English speakers in many fields. The belief that written and spoken language is an individual act and not a social act. This leads to the belief that language, words, writings exist by themselves outside of any production and social interaction. In short, an essentialization of language.
I don’t get why your field is so uniquely obsessed with the original reading. It’s obviously an important question but so is the transmission tradition itself
Dan, much in the same way we have to be vigilant and responsible in our own research and study using search engines, do you think AI can be helpful to a non-academic individual in learning about and understanding biblical/religion scholarship?
@@tnypxl If you're really careful with how you construct questions, LLMs like ChatGPT (I refuse to use the AI term) can be tremendously helpful. LLMs also have no idea what truth is and can just throw together random stuff that sounds legitimate. The best format I've come across for study is something like: PROMPT: Give the views from scholars on formal equivalence verses dynamic equivalence. Write two paragraphs. Each paragraph should give quotes from notable scholars. Return the information in the following format: Position: Formal Equivalnce / Dynamic equivalence Scholarly Support: Names of scholars View: Paragraph detailing the view of these scholars. Supporting Quote 1: Supporting Quote 2: Supporting Quote 3:
"This content creator is _trying_ to sound informed" is the sickest burn
Do you know his name by any chance? I keep seeing Dan debunking his videos.
@@Call_Me_Rio Wyatt A. Moron
@@Call_Me_Rio We are not supposed to flame him.
@@hjk7833 But his was wrong and talking nonsense or do want to cry because your feelings got hurt?
That content creator was talking crap to push his agenda.
That behaviour is disgusting.
@@hjk7833it’s well deserved. He tried to sound informed.
This video feels like I'm watching a HS teacher explain to a student why his video essay deserves a D+.
I’ll always love the verse in 1 John: “if you know a brother has need and close off your intestines to him, how is God’s love in you?” I’ll vote for a literal reading every time because they’re hilarious 😂
🌈
Dan barely restrained himself from a loud burst of laughter at "Haven Bible Chat." Props.
An AI trained on apologetic texts gave an apologetic response to the question. Who would have thought?😮
My childhood pastor spoke from the pulpit often about the extant manuscripts. He presented their existence, especially the Dead Sea scrolls, as if they were 1) the original autographs & 2) plentiful enough in totality that we can "know" we had the authentic "Word of God as transmitted by God Himself" in our (Protestant) KJV Bible. It came as a complete shock to me after I became an adult to find out otherwise. In my mind, I pictured entire ancient scrolls. When I first realized how many manuscripts were merely fragments, I was rattled. I'm 69, & it's only within the past ten years that I've discovered that we do not have any truly original writings, & that the variations among the manuscripts can be quite distinct. I'm amazed at what my fundamentalist pastors & teachers taught us in order to keep their dogma about the nature of the Bible intact.
Although my area of expertise is middle French not Biblical Greek/Hebrew, this is a good explanation of the complexities of translation period, especially from archaic language into modern.
Yes that is true. Trying to speak a different language than your mother tongue is an experience in this process . You are trying to speak words from say French that are approximate to English.
As much as I enjoy the sense of Schadenfreude every time Dan -dunks on- attempts to educate that young man, it’s depressing that he is so resistant to learning ANYTHING. Has he even finished high school yet? 🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️
You have identified my gripe with religion in general and the evangelical community in particular. Smugly wrong and insisting everyone live as they do or be damned.
His youth is a good excuse for his misplaced confidence in his weak understanding of biblical scholarship. Many who are much older than him are guilty of spouting similarly ignorant arguments. Many young people wake up to their own ignorance and educate themselves, far more often than older people. This creator will hopefully find humility, educate himself more deeply, and perhaps even become a good biblical scholar someday.
Short answer: No.
Long answer: No, and you should also not trust anyone telling you that you should trust the Bible while they themselves haven't learned any of the original languages the Bible was written in it and familiarized themselves with the culture of the era, because they are less serious about their love of the Bible and their God than I was about my love of Dragonball Z back in high school.
Also just... history. If they are not familiar enough with verified archaeology and historical reconstructions to recognise that the Bible accounts regularly differ from the evidence and seems to contain a lot of identity-construction mythology, then they are not sufficiently informed to comment on the reliability of the Bible's content.
The question is problematic. “Is the Bible trustworthy?” The Bible, as Dr. M likes to say doesn’t hold characteristics except that which the reader or readers give to it (i.e. authority). The Bible should be read critically even within faith claims/convictions (I say this as a practicing Christian). Its trustworthiness or untrustworthiness is something that is brought to the text of the Bible and not “found” within the text. Contradictions of various details represents the Bible’s composite nature and something we should take seriously, but represent different scribal communities at different times reflecting their own theological, cosmological convictions, and life concerns that were different than those writing prior to that time and then different to those writing after them. We have the benefit of a set and codified textual tradition wherein we can recognize and wrestle with these. It has no bearing on whether the text itself is “trustworthy,” which is not an applicable question to an ancient collection of texts. These same questions are not applied outside of scholarly communities to other ancient texts because they do not have the same place within our socio-cultural milieu (visibly anyway). The cultural standing of the Bible in the West has led to these kinds of questions, but they miss the mark.
I think the video was more about the philosophy of translation. A better title would be “Can inerrancy and inspiration be trusted?”
@@user-kv1po2dm5j Agreed, even still. As far as translation is concerned, I think my claims still stand. Even if we approach the text with suspicion or to deconstruct it, we will have to trust someone, somewhere along the way. The Bible is not the result of a single person, but has always been a community endeavor that requires trust in those and our own communities. No matter our approach. Even applied to the question of bible translation “can we trust translations of the Bible”, the question still misses the mark in my opinion.
@@BrentJohnson-ki7jy I agree with your position on the question “is the Bible trustworthy?” ". What we hope for future interpretations is that the secularization of societies will make it possible to go beyond the particular and let's say ideological or dogmatic attitude that certain societies/groups show when faced with so-called "sacred" texts. A Sanskritist friend encounters a similar (not identical) problem with Hindu and Buddhist texts. I may be a naive optimist but I believe that future negotiations with these texts will result in more tolerance and acceptance of otherness. I wrote in one go and realize that my response should have been shorter.😄
The thumbnail of grinning Dan with HELLBOY on his shirt and the caption DYNAMIC EQUIVALENCE 😂
The ChatGPT translation of the Bible is God-inspired and inerrant. 😂 In the name of Perforated Cheeses.
The question is: Can it be trusted for WHAT?
Life advice? Existence of the Divine? Literary studies? Cultural studies? Historical studies?
Trust for WHAT?
I have to ask this because the answer varies.
I love the mic drop at the end. I think biblical scholarship is really underrated, Dan does an excellent job in communicating this to a wider audience.
Dan, I know this type of debunking is tedious. Thank you for keeping it up.
I believe they have had similar problems with The Necronomicon. And BOY, if you get the wrong translation of a passage from THAT book, all KINDS of trouble can materialize! And don't EVEN get me started on shoggoths......
Klatuu Barada Nic"cough cough"
You are playing with forces outside of your control.....@@scottmaddow7879
Where is Ashy Slashy when you need him
Yaahaaa Yaahaaa Shub Niggurath...😂
See?! With only three comments, we already demonstrate that there are two completely different schools of thought: the cosmic horror, versus the splat monster.
This video is so good I'm having to watch it a second time
Listening to to Dr. McClellan is better than church.
Seriously! If church contained people as genuinely curious and educational as Dr McClellan, I’d still be going.
💯 Same with non-dogmatic theologians like Brian McLaren and Peter Enns.
Same
@@TheNeverbornThey do exist. I am in full time congregational ministry and encourage curiosity and critical thinking. I also encourage church members to use their voices to offer disagreement/dissent. However, I lament, this is not common.
@@BrentJohnson-ki7jy
Where is your ministry?
Gotta love Brooks arrogance and confidence 😅 "by the authority granted to me by Tiktok, I'm going to put this debate to rest once and for all"
The funniest part was when the guy used the word _refute_ at the the end. Is that what that was supposed to be? 😂
I thought by now, this boy would have been chastened by his gaffes, flubs, and goofs! Oh no! His sensibilities tell him he's doing just fine! This type of persistence towards error is a serious signal.
He asked an AI and it told him he's doing great, so that's that!
You have dunked on this kid so many times that you gotta invite him on the podcast
Or help him get a real education in the field.
Seriously, Dan - Do you think that OP making a TicTok video in his bedroom will understand a single word of that 2010 paper?
He should probably start small and start with learning how to operate a hairbrush.
Of all the grounds upon which you could criticize him, you have to go with the ad hominem fallacy
I think Dan speaks to us more than to the author of the video
@@thomaswillard6267 That was not an ad hominem fallacy; I wasn't saying anything against OP's arguments. That was simply a straight-up insult.
@@digitaljanus🤣
That young apologetic is going to have hard time defending the Bible.
Especially with someone like Dan on the other side defending scholarship and attacking the spread of misinformation.
That same creator has repeatedly demonstrated his defenses of his interpretations of the Bible. Asserting facts not in evidence is common on that channel and his intended audience just goes with it. Most of those people won't listen to Dr. McClellan, or any other scholar who uses facts that don't support their dogma.
@@beowulfschmidt6031 No. It's the other way around: *Most people like you and others of Dan's amen choir who want to listen to him, or any other "biblical scholars" like Bart do so because their heavily biased talking points (presented as facts) support their dogma.*
"That young apologetic is going to have hard time defending the Bible" - all in your imagination.
Let's make it clear.
@@JayWest14 "attacking the spread of misinformation"? 😂😂😂
Except Dan is a source of misinformation.
What a service you’re performing, Dan.Thank you, It is deeply appreciated.
I trust stories to be exactly what they are. Stories.
Virtue-signaling is still virtue-signaling even if you're an atheist. YAWN.
I wait for the earth to shake & the saints to come out of the grave (Matthew 27:52-53)
I wish that I had had access to someone like Dan when I was in my 20's. They might have been around but I only had my own echo chamber. There was so much assumption in my world that the scholars were all in agreement because univocality must mean that they could only all come to the same conclusions. I also now recognize just how inadequate the training (if any, in some cases) was for so many of the people that I looked to for an understanding of the bible and by extension how it applied to my life and how I should live it.
I'm afraid it very dangerous to approach the Bible on any level, unless you have someone like Dan McClellan to help you navigate it pitfalls.
OP reminds me of me when I was young. I hope he keeps pressing in and following the data wherever it leads him
Again, this is why we need to seek having a personal testimony (actual personal spiritual experiences with God) and then seek knowledge and wisdom of how to share and decern it, and not making assumptions about even your own experiences. I appreciate an honest look at the scriptures, thankyou Dan, very wise.
“Because the available texts are unreliable, we therefore must put our trust in personal anecdotes.”
Sigh.
@@yohei72 It's the best they've got, let them have it.
At least they know they might be wrong (unless they think they can't be because they experienced pure love).
Google University sure is handing out a lot of theology diplomas these days. Are they available as a PDF download?
Your work and knowledge and so important. Thank you.
This reminds me of the probably now widespread meme of a pyramid, at the bottom of which we can read "High school diploma". With each layer, it goes up one level, to associate diploma, then graduate, then master's, then PhD, and culminates with "Some dude who watched a video on UA-cam and called it research".
Thank you, Dr McClellan for taking the time to set the record straight and "putting it to rest once and for all".
Thanks Dan ! Always appreciate your infomation
Mike Mignola's Hellboy is the only Hellboy I trust. 👍
The original and the best homie 😁!
As someone who watches anime, both subbed and dubbed, I can _definitively_ say translators don't always do the best job as they sometimes put their own spin on the source instead of trying to convey the gist or meaning of the original.
They're picking words and phrases that sync with the visible mouth-flaps of the onscreen characters, that's also guiding their process.
Great point! What comes to mind is Brock in Pokemon. In the original Japanese show, he’s eating sushi. But in the 4Kids dub, he’s eating jelly-filled donuts. Why? Because the 4Kids interpreters felt jelly-filled donuts resonated more with their target audience than sushi. So sometimes dub translators choose is this “dynamic equivalence” which can actually have drastic implications on the integrity of the characters, plot lines, and other factors integral to the story.
I wonder sometimes if they even have the source.
The Bible is definitely the product of an all-powerful, all-loving, all-knowing perfect god. Definitely. 🙄
??????????
Of all the content creators you critique, this kid is the worst. He is wholly irksome. A child force fed dogma trying to tell the world what to think.
That kid is a product of his environment. He is following in the footsteps of such arrogant pricks as Winger, WL Craig, and that Australian guy who accosts college kids.
He does have the performative argumentation down pat. His fellow believers must be proud.
I don’t know, this kid can at least later on claim to have been young when he made the videos. You have older guys like the guys off of IP and VOR that are flat out trying to sound highly informed but end up sounding like Terrance Howard and Graham Hancock!!
I try not to let his snotty deliver color my judgement of his intellectual failure. Despite this, I find myself trying to hand him a kleenex through the screen so he can wipe his nose.
Oh my, Dan having to debunk trash AI …
When I was little, they used to joke that artificial intelligence was no substitute for real stupidity, but they've nailed it.
Thanks Dan! 👍🏼
👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏
The more I learn about how many different scriptures of the same scriptures that are different from each other, and how it seems none of them are from the period of any actual eye witnesses, the more I'm convinced that there is absolutely no way we will ever know the truth until we die and "if" we end up standing in front of the Creator, then and only then will we know. How far off am I for thinking this? I was raised that all of this was from eye witnesses of people that walked with Jesus. Then I learn that they are unsigned, no real way of knowing who wrote what, and even that most was written at least 150+ years after his death.
I would love for you to make a video explaining in depth your slogan of data over Dogma. I think I agree with the premise, but i wonder what the implications are and how far you are willing to take them. And as part of that, what role does tradition play? I ask this because according to orthodox and catholic views, the bible, as well as the church are authoritative. I think your great at pointing out the flaws of protestant thinking because of the dogma of sola scriptura. But how do you navigate the idea of church authority and tradition? I appreciate your work Dan, and i feel that knowing your thoughts on this would help me appreciate your work even more. Thanks Dan!
Thank you.
Dr. Dan pile drives another of this creator's misinformation efforts. Ba-BAM!
He really fell right into that
Ive never seen dan hold in a laugh, but the AI use finally got him
This lad sounds soo superior an Condescending
Boom!
I would love to see Dan in a debate.
Short answer is no, but take it as an allegorie. Blessed be 🙏🏼
It seems that the dramatic mic drop was edited out of the end of this video. Please put it back in.🎤
You would expect an immortal, omnipresent, all-powerful, all-knowing and totally benevolent diety to be an ever so slightly better communicator. And why would it need ghost writers, translators and nutcakes in pulpits and on street corners to explain stuff in greater detail and clarity?
Perhaps God overestimated your intelligence....
Linguist Dan is my favorite Dan.
Oh Snap!
Last line 😂
This is slightly off-topic, but when listening to Dr. McClellan in this video, I was focusing more his discussion of the problems of translation per se, rather than just Bible translation. Translation is an immensely difficult skill, very complicated, and decisions have to be made all the time on all manner of problems, not just those Dr. M pointed out here. For an excellent and entertaining book about the art and practice of translation, read David Bellos, "Is That a Fish In Your Ear?" (Bellos is not a Bible translator - he generally translates novels from French and Russian into English.) (Hopefully, you get the reference to the babel fish from "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" in Bellos' title.)
There is not a single letter, not even a word of the original Bible in existence.
Alhamdulillah for Islam
What original Bible?
How do you know this?
You know the Quran has been much changed and exists in variant versions as well, right?
@@yohei72 I can look at Quran's like the Birmingham Quran and read it. So your lies do not affect me. Alhamdulillah for Islam and original Arabic language. I highly recommend subscribing to ancient and rare book collectors to realize how wrong you truly are. I can read all of the qurans that they post up. You can't say that about almost any Bible. On top of that every rare book collector knows how unbelievably corrected the Bible is. Every scholar knows this. Every theologian with a degree knows this. I highly recommend getting an interest in one of those three things.
@@rocketdogticker 😂😂😂 Oh, wait, you're serious. Let me laugh harder. 🤣🤣🤣
@@lysanamcmillan7972 oh wait you only speak and understand one language. Hilarious
Dan was pretty generous with the translation from translation issue. But we know that even the NRSVUE has its words because of the KJV, because the Volgate because the oldest greek, which if Papias is to be believed wasn't the original Hebrew of Matthew, which appears to have some direct citations of the greek translation of Isaiah 7. So Hebrew->greek->hebrew->greek->latin->early modern english->late modern english. I wouldn't trust a food menu or instruction manual that underwent all that.
Dan...What do you think about Dr Richard Carrier and his work? Is his conclusion regarding Jesus viable? Can you please give you're opinion. Thanks.
"Greet one another with a holy kiss"? Isn't a former head of the Spanish Football Association currently on trial for trying to "greet" the the World Cup winning Spanish Women's football Captain with a kiss, that she didn't want?
Kiss on the mouth between men 😳 was the rule in the old USSR. I remember watching it on tv when I was a kid. I didn’t know that the tradition went as back as early Christianity.
@@pansepot1490 If one is not Homosexual, such a kiss in the "West" would certainly be called "Sexual Assault".
Wait - so you're saying that modern Christians don't obediently follow the Bible word for word?
Blasphemy! 🤣
If she didn't want it, then it wasn't holy, was it?
@@lysanamcmillan7972 According to the Bible, it still could've been considered holy. Remember that, in those days, a woman's prior consent, or even desire, wasn't considered necessary.
BTW, religious believers feel the need to retrofit modern morality and ethics into ancient texts. That's because their notion of God is in many ways light-years from that of the ancient Hebrews.
The Bible, being the word of God, can certainly be trusted. But some people’s interpretation of God's word.... not so much.
I dont like to talk about "the bible", because we have many. Jews dont believe in the Nt. There were much more than 4 gospels and in different languages. And what does "trust" even mean? That it comes from God? No. That it was written by the traditional authors ? No. The bibles arent even univocal. We have to judge each book on its own and it seems to me that the 6 or 7 letters out of 13 of Paul are the only books/letters written by the traditional author out of 66 to over 90 books in all of the bibles. But the problem is, Paul as a person is not reliable or trustworthy.
If Jesus trusts Paul then why shouldn't we??
But the Church Fathers believed he was at the time. Inspiration being questioned in scripture is a post modern problem, as most of these issues were settled during various Church Councils over the centuries. That's how the Bible ended up canonized to begin with.
@@gabbygood6813Who says Jesus trusted Paul? Oh wait - Paul said it.
The same Paul who argued with the actual apostles - and brother! - of Jesus. The same Paul who hardly if ever actually quoted the teachings of Jesus, and whose own teachings contradicted Jesus'. The same Paul whose companions disagreed with and stopped traveling with him.
Yeah, thats proof enough for me that Jesus trusted Paul. 🙄
Smh...
@@apachewraith the church fathers are also not reliable or trustworthy. They followed propaganda and made stuff up themselves.
@@apachewraith Paul and church fathers are all unreliable. The church fathers didn't represent Jewish Christianity and didn't know any apostle
Does it bother anyone else that the guy records his videos one sentence at a time?
Or is that normal for TikTok?
That’s a pretty common form of how people record their TikToks
Dan he doesn’t know theoretical framework means…unlearned 🙄🙄🙄
I realize the "translation of a translation" criticism doesn't apply today, when translators have been able to work from hebrew/aramaic/greek manuscripts for centuries, but wasn't that how the bibles pre-Vulgate were produced? Like: I'd always been taught Jerome's whole project in the Vulgate was to fix the errors that had crept in by checking the versions of his day against the older manuscripts they were just starting to get access to in the 14th century.
That kid is clearly reading someone elses words
To be fair, 15 year olds never have anything important to say. It is possible for them to be correct on an issue, but they find themselves there merely by chance.
Doesn't this again demonstrate another weakness of AI? Bible Translation involves many, many choices be made by Human Translators. While AI might make faster decisions, how many of its decisions will be as considered as those of a conscientious Human?
And who's to blame for there needing to be translations? God, of course, because he got pissed off at the builders of the Tower of Babel and made everyone speak different languages. Even though he would have known how many problems he would create by doing so.
DUH, God!
I love how you always refer to everyone as them/they. You make zero assumptions as to how someone presents and just head off any unintended slights.
After watching the very language I have spoken since my first word change drastically over my life time I can confidently say that all sides of this argument are guessing. The difference is some Christians just ask God about it and listen to what he has to say on the topic. So my recommendation for Christians is to ask God. My recommendation for non-Christians is to ask God about it, and everything else for that matter.
Hearing directly from God is far more important than trusting the Bible, and any direct revelation commands trump the words of the Bible if they are in conflict with one another.
That's how people end up killing their kids.
@@lavieestlenfer No one in their right mind would disobey Jesus and spare their kid for their own selfish desires when Hell is the alternative.
@@EatHoneyBeeHappy Forget Jesus. Anything--be it god, political party, country, friend, lover, the other voices in your head, anything--that asks you to kill your children is not worthy of worship. That you can't see that is terrifying.
If Jesus wants my kids dead, then he can kill them himself. If he's truly God, then he doesn't need me or any human to do anything for him. In fact, he could just spare me, my partner and kids, by not giving me kids in the first place
Oh wait, I forgot - your book of Revelation portrays Jesus as a vergeful, murderous god. So then he would probably love nothing more than to see me snuff the light out of my kids, for his sake.
This has to be the sickest comment I've read yet. Smh... .
@@EatHoneyBeeHappy Holy Christ. You need help. Bad.
If not mistaken Wallace has that same assumption - that the original must be preserved in the extant variations. But even if that were true how do you KNOW what the original was among those variations? So no we don't have nor do we know what the original was!
Also, anyone remember the sources for the 3 day return of the soul to the body doctrine?
Your comments about translation are helpful since I translate as a hobby (and make music subs on my channel ... shameless plug).
If I understand correctly, the difference between formal and dynamic is where the cultural lens of the reader is applied.
Formal requires the reader to understand the cultural context of the writer and mentally translate the text into the reader's culture. These translation strive to be cultural neutral with respect to the reader. The acerbic curmudgeon within me points out that it might be better to teach the reader the original language and culture and then tell the reader to read the original text for herself!
Dynamic tries to apply the cultural lens during the translation process. But this renders a text that must not outlive the culture for which it was translated.
How significant are the differences, if one rejects the ideas of divine inspiration and univocality? Is it like the bible edition that accidentally left “not” out of a commandment, or are the differences more an academic discussion versus something that affects the everyday bible student?
Leaving translation aside, there are several different versions of the Bible because there a several different lists of books that make up the Bible or canons.
LOL,some places, maybe even some events may have happened. Not trustworthy.
🤙
Nice fit.
And one reason why the printers of the Protestant Bible decided to get away from the Greek Old Testament, erroneously called the Septuagint (LXX) was because it had so many irreconcilable variants. This is because the Greek collection of books were not systematically translated but spuriously translated between the 3rd century and the time of Origen without much regard for fidelity.
Moreover the oldest Hebrew Tanack we have outside of the incomplete collection of the Dead Sea Scrolls is the Aleppo codex written in the 10th century. William Propp who did an all sources translation of Exodus with an in depth discussion of the variants prefers the Masoretic text over other texts the overwhelming majority of time for non-theological reasons. We can imagine that a 10th CE reproduction is better and the much older LXX makes us ponder how bad the Greek translations were.
Theology plays a role in the growth of textual variants of the text. While the Jewish Orthodoxy (specifically Masorites) that punctuated the MT were effected by anti Semetic polemics, they have tended to preserve better the text. Whereas Christian’s who maintained the LXX were frequently looking for proof text in the Old Testament and this affected their ability to faithfully translate the meaning of the text.
Thanks for your clarifying functional vs formal translation. I went to college at an evangelical seminary for three years and i'm lretty sure it was never explsined to me that way. It is possible that i just read "word for word vs meaning for meaning" into whatever explanation i was giving since it was something i engaged with a lot as a language interpreter, but either way i'm glad to be corrected.
I dont know if you ever answer questions from the comments, but could you clarify the source on your reading of theopneustos? After a quick glance online i've only found a couple pages talking about it, which makes me, and I would expect it to show up a bit more if it was the consensus view. Obviously it doesnt always work that way but I'm just curious where it comes from and how prevalent it is/among who
The Dunning-Kruger effect is strong with this one. 🤣
This apologetic content creator gives truth to the oft-misunderstood saying that a little knowledge - ie, ignorance - is a dangerous thing.
Dan has taught me so much! But this video is next level. Thank you so much Dan.
Next level? Next level of 💩
Oooo, basement boy is at the monotone script again.
I am not sure trust will be best because it seems to involve intention as if the biblical writers are expecting an audience of the far future. The "trust" just comes from modern day people, while being raised by the interpreted doctrine of the more recent authorities like the Catholic church or Protestant church, the rest is just projections to align the literature with modern understanding of the world. So, what is to trust? It's like trusting the Epic of Gilgamesh (Poetry like Palms) with The Code of Hammurabi (ancient Babylonian laws) following the traditions of being raised in a near east culture around them along with related literature, convincing myself that they apply to a modern day setting. Even if the ancient writers try to be universal, the never account for cultural shifts. An example, is the Bible pro-racism and believes black people are cursed by God because of the Mark of Canan or Curse on the Canaanite because of Ham or since while are mentioned in the Bible but never spoke of the curse of having dark skin, the racist narrative is just a mere projection? Sure, there is xenophobia, but is race a merit as in one race better than others. The closest is the Hebrews being God's chosen people but are white supremacists Hebrews, which, ironically, to the minimum, a handful of them will detest because it involves the association with Jews. While white Supremacists are antisemitic, why does God value them as a master race but has the Hebrews (Jewish people) as his chosen. Christianity is still no excuse because salvation is given to the Jews first, then the Gentiles Romans 1:16.
Brooks has to be getting tired of this by now
As if there is a problem. There is only the problem that people have with what the texts say.
While i think your "dunking" videos are well-done and informative (and I am thankful to found your channel!), I would try to stay away from condescension. I understand the want of "obliterating" channels making ill-informed videos and spreading Biblically questionable ideas, but IMHO The Spirit dwells in truth, not in condescension. But that's just my perspective.
As in the differences between The Bible in "Klingon" vs The Klingon Bible.
I guess it depends if Kahless appears or not.
@@russellharrell2747 With that sweet, sweet mokume-gane bat'leth.
👏🏿👏🏿👏🏿
Since Yahweh consistently makes sense as a nation, it can also mean scripture is God's life.
Which makes sense. For example the laws of Mexico 🌯are part of what makes the nation of Mexico exist and not just be a random set of lines on a map. Christians always forget the entire point of the New Testament *IS* the Kingdom of Heaven.
Though it would be weird for Paul to make such a coherent point, given how he usually is...
Actually, no, I doesn't make sense. What does make sense is science and logical reasoning.
@@Noneya5555 Within the Bible ✝ itself it makes sense.
You can even use the scientific 🧪 method for this by testing Bible passages and seeing if they are logically coherent if Yahweh is a nation.
Whether or not this applies to reality is another question entirely.
@@UniDocs_Mahapushpa_Cyavana Sorry, I was conflating making sense with being true.
My bad. 😁
I am far more likely to accept the words of someone like Dan McClellan than most Christian apologists out there on social media. I personally think many of them don't have the knowledge required to speak on these topics, but are more about gaining views, subs, and likes from those they have duped into thinking them "an authority". Now the kid in this video that McClellan critiqued is just parroting bad theology, and appears to just be reading someone else's words.
Biblical Scholarship is good to watch.
The Bible can be trusted for whatever good you can glean from it. The Bible is almost entirely made up of oral stories and traditions, opinions, some history and genealogy, over many centuries. Love God, our creator and father. Love, serve and forgive one another, and don't judge. If you can only get that out of the Bible, you've got the most important message.
Can the Bible be trusted.....you did a fine job discussing the intricacies of what is available for interpretation however being uneducated myself , Can the Bible be trusted please answer the question ?
Depends on what it is being trusted for.
I’d trust a pill from Cosby before I trust anything an apologist says.
The apologist's attitude is based (beyond the propagation of his dogmas) on a common point that I find among many English speakers in many fields. The belief that written and spoken language is an individual act and not a social act. This leads to the belief that language, words, writings exist by themselves outside of any production and social interaction. In short, an essentialization of language.
Can the Book of Mormon be trusted?
So at 7:13 are you saying the English language was around when the text was translated from Sumerian or whatever language it was first written?
I don’t get why your field is so uniquely obsessed with the original reading. It’s obviously an important question but so is the transmission tradition itself
Dan, much in the same way we have to be vigilant and responsible in our own research and study using search engines, do you think AI can be helpful to a non-academic individual in learning about and understanding biblical/religion scholarship?
I ask because, the data and information is so vast.
@@tnypxl If you're really careful with how you construct questions, LLMs like ChatGPT (I refuse to use the AI term) can be tremendously helpful. LLMs also have no idea what truth is and can just throw together random stuff that sounds legitimate.
The best format I've come across for study is something like:
PROMPT: Give the views from scholars on formal equivalence verses dynamic equivalence. Write two paragraphs. Each paragraph should give quotes from notable scholars. Return the information in the following format:
Position: Formal Equivalnce / Dynamic equivalence
Scholarly Support: Names of scholars
View: Paragraph detailing the view of these scholars.
Supporting Quote 1:
Supporting Quote 2:
Supporting Quote 3:
Dunn krugger effect
0:20 yeah but you don't you only speak one language. Wild af