But the song wouldn't be as catchy if the lyrics were "For the words that were mistranslated in the Bible tell me so!"

@rainbowkrampus

Ай бұрын

If you change it to 3/4 you can make it work with a bit of vowel stretching. Probably still not as catchy though lol

@creamwobbly

Ай бұрын

🎶 _for the Bible says a lot of things, shove her!_ 🎶

Anyone who's listened to 'Paul's Boutique' knows that Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego were the Beastie Boys.

@zackzimmer7167

Ай бұрын

Obviously…

@Thetheologyguy12

Ай бұрын

Omg someone else thought that too

the pronounciation of Jurasisic Parak caused me great psychic and emotional harm

"You can't prove it's not" is the new "gotcha" for all Christian apologists. Because it's all they've got.

@rainbowkrampus

Ай бұрын

"New", "a practice which predates christianity"; potayto, potahto

@shanegooding4839

Ай бұрын

​@Bible-ChristianNo it isn't.

@lde-m8688

Ай бұрын

What the heck does Islam have to do with this? Oh right, nothing. Because Dan is not talking about Islam in this video.

@rainbowkrampus

Ай бұрын

@Bible-Christian Brother, your reading comprehension skills are in the toilet.

@BobbyHill26

Ай бұрын

@@lde-m8688this guy assumes anyone that isn’t a Christian is a Muslim, so any time there’s a critique of his flavor of Christianity, he starts attacking a Muslim strawman that doesn’t even have anything to do with the topic at hand. He’s in the comments of almost every video

The whole dialogue is funny to me, like it would hilarious of SNL did a skit of the King being all freaked out... ummm, didn't we throw 3 dudes in there? Yeah, that's what I thought. Quick question... why are there four dudes in there? 😅

@solidstorm6129

Ай бұрын

You say that and I immediately thought of Veggietales. They did something similar in one of the episodes.

@adamkotter6174

Ай бұрын

I think the same when I read Esther (and watch the VeggieTales version!).

Keep fighting the good fight, Dan. 🖖

Thanks for your term “negotiates“ Bible verses. I’ll be borrowing that when discussing among my Inerrant Bible friends

I always appreciate these videos -- I continually learn from you, thanks again!

I remember seeing a biblical TV mini series that showed the actor later playing Jesus in the furnace...(he also showed up early to have a meal with Abraham)

Thanks Dan. I always thought Abednigo was Winebego, so I stand corrected. Stay strong, brother.

@rainbowkrampus

Ай бұрын

The Torah makes a lot more sense once you realize that the whole thing takes place during a single RV trip across the US.

@captkillionsparrow

Ай бұрын

​@rainbowkrampus svh (snorted very hard)... lol but more real.

Jura-sissick Pah-rock! 😆

This one seems like a silly hill to die on. Nebuchadnezzar was a polytheist, right? Not a Christian or anything close to it. He saw what he saw, and he described it in his own words. There’s no practical value for anyone, Christian or otherwise, to bother negotiating this one.

@Texasmade74

Ай бұрын

You can't reason and logic with Christians

@MagicMayers

Ай бұрын

Exactly what I was thinking. It's so trivial. My question is, what exactly was different about this 4th individual that made Nebuchadnezzar conclude it was one of the gods?

@Texasmade74

Ай бұрын

@MagicMayers why would you try to force the text to mean angel or Jesus??First off he was a Babylonian king who believed in and worshipped many Gods so he would not automatically think it was an angel and definitely not Jesus

@MagicMayers

Ай бұрын

@@Texasmade74 Read my comment again. I didn't even mention angels or Jesus...

Man, I still love the original Jirassissik Parak. One of my favorite movies. On an unrelated note, KZread's algorithm has gotten waaaaaaay out of hand. Don't know why I thought of that...

Jurasisic parak. Lolol. Is that what your kids call it. My grandson used to call it Juraskik park. To this day I now call it “get Jurasskicked park” because of that. Snortle

Really informative, once again. Thank you, Dan.

Excellent as always!

"The power of Dan compels you! The power of Dan compels you! The power of Dan compels you! "

Timely post, given the retraction of the “2000 Mules” movie. Certain folks love the supposed significance of its “findings” and will continue to believe it, and even promote it, regardless. Same psychology. You are generous to such folks by not calling that what it is after they are informed, namely a LIE.

You can actually blame the Vulgate for this, once again. The Vulgate reads: "et species quarti similis filio dei", which can either be translated "and the form of the fourth is like a son of God", or "like the son of God". Believe it or not, the Dutch Statenvertaling of 1637 gets it right: "en de gedaante des vierden is gelijk eens zoons der goden" (of which Haak's English translation is: "and the form of the fourth is like [the form] of a son of the gods").

@melissaw1903

Ай бұрын

Would that mean a child of a greek god? Or a young looking demon?

@Texasmade74

Ай бұрын

​@melissaw1903 oh gods here comes the demon nonsense

@melissaw1903

Ай бұрын

@@Texasmade74 what are you talking about. Who was it then. Jesus not a son of gods. He is God's son. Unless you believe it was a Greek god?

@Texasmade74

Ай бұрын

@melissaw1903 you watch and listen to all of this from Dan and probably other scholars that literally discredits the Bible yet here you are trying to tell me that what your pastor told you is right vs a man who actually has studied the Hebrew/Greek/Aramaic and has studied the original manuscripts

@fnjesusfreak

Ай бұрын

@@Texasmade74 For what it's worth, I don't speak any of the ancient languages, but I have enough awareness of the Vulgate and of Latin to make statements as to what the Vulgate says, and between the Statenvertaling of 1637 and the Haak translation of 1657 it isn't hard to make KJVOs very uncomfortable.

I still want to know what kind of technology they had back then. What kind of a furnace is big enough to have four grown men in it walking around. And what kind of porthole would they have been looking through to see inside this massive furnace? What would such a furnace be used for? What would its fuel source be? I know I ask too many dumb questions.

@andrewsuryali8540

Ай бұрын

It could be either a royal kiln or a smelting furnace. Kilns the size of small houses have been found in Babylon. Smelting furnaces for copper and iron were also very big in the Neo-Babylonian empire era because they didn't have the fuel (coke) that would allow the energy density needed to make small furnaces able to melt base metals. They had to make the process multilayered.

As much as I want to say this "negotiation with the text" point is Dan's broken record, it's really not; No, this song needs to play on repeat -- the collective comprehension is actually broken and needs to listen up.

Beautiful

Thank you.

The Aramaic term בר אלהין means a type of angel, like the Hebrew term בני האלהים that appears several times in Job. Any Jew who attends synagogue regularly and pays attention to what he’s saying would instantly recognise the phrase from ולא על בר אלהין סמיכנא which is universally translated as “nor do I rely on any angel”.

Helpful explanation of " negotiation of the text"

The simple fact that you pronounced Abednego correctly should force your opposition to sit down and listen. Great clip. 👌

Thanks!

Its translated as "Son of God" in Finnish translators made in 1776 and 1938, there is a small difference since one of those uses upper case. The correct translation can be found in newer translation made in 1992 in that translation the world it is translated into a deity.

I think it’s clear the text is conveying Nebuchadnezzar saw some divine being, from his pantheon.

@glenwillson5073

Ай бұрын

No, what's clear is, that he naturally may have assumed the being was from his pantheon. There is a difference.

@hardwork8395

Ай бұрын

@@glenwillson5073Yours is a distinction without a difference: He saw a god from his pantheon, while Israelites took the various gods they worshipped from his and other cultures around them.

@glenwillson5073

Ай бұрын

@@hardwork8395 I knew there was a high likelihood you would subscribe to the claim that the "Israelites took the various gods they worshipped from his and other cultures around them". That's why I made my comment. You should have a little chat to Darius & Nebuchadnezzar. They would both have quite the chuckle over your words. Right after they have you executed. Well Nebuchadnezzar would execute you for sure, it's possible Darius may be a little more lenient. These kings understood, from the experiences they had, that the god of the Israelites was something unique, a god all together different to their gods and nothing to do with any gods from any pantheon they knew anything of. Your contention/belief, that Israelite religion simply must be based upon, and an out growth of, other non-Israelite religions & cultures, is logical, but only if your pre-existing, pre-emptive, assumed premise is correct. A dangerous way to do logic. As another commentator recently said to me; {Many cultures have god stories and myths and the Israelites are no exception. Time to grow up, huh?} My response was & is; If the Bible is not true, Many cultures having god stories and myths is exactly what you would expect to see. If the Bible is true, Many cultures having god stories and myths is exactly what you would expect to see. Therefore the fact of many cultures having god stories and myths proves nothing either way. Assuming one explanation over the other, is neither logical nor proper application of the scientific method. Reliance upon the, we have written records that predate the Bible, argument proves nothing. Example; Non-Israelite written accounts of a great flood were written before the biblical account was written. Conclusion? The biblical account comes from these earlier accounts, therefore there was no flood. Of course, the fact that world wide flood stories, being common to multiple cultures, is exactly what you would expect to see if there was such a flood, is completely ignored. A dangerous way to do logic. This all reminds me of the logic of the King & his daughters story. The King had twelve daughters, each more beautiful than the other. Yes, but only if you line them up that way. Another thing that is completely ignored is, that both the OT & NT categorically state that only the Israelite god actually exists.

@hardwork8395

18 күн бұрын

@@glenwillson5073 your arguments here are simply straw manning the actual reasons we know the Bible borrowed from these traditions and reformulated them, and it isn’t as you’ve asserted, a case of post hoc ergo prompter hoc-everyone understands that would be fallacious. We know by the convergence of several independent lines of evidence, historical provenance is just one line amongst several threads that converge to form a narrative. The problem is, you have literally nothing going the other way, you just have “for the Bible tells me so.”

I've never thought this was a reference to Jesus, nor met anyone who did, but obviously it must be a thing. "Son of God" wouldn't automatically mean Jesus in any case. And what would a Babylonian king know of any Jesus, let alone him being a/the son of God? That much was instantly obvious upon my first reading of the passage. But I'm all for having as accurate a translation as possible.

@patrickwilliams3108

Ай бұрын

Yes, it is a thing. Some Trinitarians say that Jesus always existed alongside God (always, like even before his time on earth). They, therefore, cling to passages like this as "proof text". "See?", they say, "Here in Daniel it talks about Jesus!"

@glenwillson5073

Ай бұрын

@@patrickwilliams3108 Yes, that would not surprise me, I can believe that.

@wartgin

Ай бұрын

​@@patrickwilliams3108 In my faith tradition, we do believe that Jesus existed from the beginning but it is not necessary to have these gotchas with him being "seen" in the Old Testament because the entire idea of the New Testament is that he took a corporeal existence to live like us, suffer, and die which implies he may not have had a body before then.

Could you make a video about the "Amen" at the end of revelation that is in the KJV but not in e.g. the vulgate

@zackzimmer7167

Ай бұрын

Didn’t he already?

@M.H_07

Ай бұрын

@@zackzimmer7167 really? What's the title?

Dan - What is your biblical perspective on the Holy Spirit in the New Testament?

Hey Dan, what’s your opinion on the Divine Council?

@macgonzo

Ай бұрын

Their latest album isn't as good as the first EP

They add "Virgin in future tense" in Isaiah 7:14. 1 John 7:5-8 trinity insertion . Mark 16:9-20 John 7:53 Mathew 17:21 Added "Easter ". There are hundreds of variant versions of the Christian bibles none used match the koine Greek new testament or Hebrew sources.

@glenwillson5073

Ай бұрын

Wow sounds catastrophically bad. But "not match" to what percentage point though?

@MitzvosGolem1

Ай бұрын

@@glenwillson5073 A list is online of various differences in both original koine Greek new testament and Hebrew scripture. Several hundred changes in total some purposefully inserted like 1John 5;7-8 . Erasmus and Luther refused to add 1 John

@glenwillson5073

Ай бұрын

@@MitzvosGolem1 My percentage point question was mainly prompted by Muslim claims I've seen of 30,000 differences/errors. But when examined, the vast majority of which, prove to be exceptionally trivial tiny technical things that don't alter meaning in any way. My church is well aware of the genuine & important ones and don't determine doctrine based on them. No trinity for example.

@MitzvosGolem1

Ай бұрын

@@glenwillson5073 1 John 5:7-8 father son ghost Trinity insertion and Isaiah 7:14 Virgin in future tense modification are far from " trivial" ... Significant changes made by church fathers. Not innocent transmission errors . No trinity man God idol? But Pagan human sacrifice calvary allowed? Why not use original koine Greek new testament or Hebrew scripture sources?

@glenwillson5073

Ай бұрын

@@MitzvosGolem1 Would make communication less of a potential slow going slog if you were to employ better written comprehension skills. Didn't claim any important verses affecting doctrine were trivial, did I? I said, "My church is well aware of the genuine & important ones and don't determine doctrine based on them." What translation uses original koine Greek new testament & Hebrew scripture sources? Why have you mentioned, {But Pagan human sacrifice calvary allowed?}? This conversation is about dodgy textual changes. Are you claiming death of Jesus does not appear in koine Greek new testament?

Seeing how there is only one true and living God, and King Nebuchadnezzar admits to seeing the figure and mentions it’s like the Son of God, we should trust the KJV translation. I trust the 47 language scholars that translated the KJV from the original languages directly to English much more than I do Dr. Dan. Our traditions are not the authority. God is the authority and He graciously gave us His truth through the King James Translation.

@progressivepogona8855

Ай бұрын

What about the translators of the other versions. We’re they all not guided by God despite being Christians as well?

@treystevenson9872

Ай бұрын

@@progressivepogona8855 No they took it upon themselves to privately interpret their own versions to make the Bible say what they wanted it to say. This is in major violation to God’s word: 2nd Peter 1:20-21, “Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost” Revelation 22:18-19, “For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.”

@hrvatskinoahid1048

Ай бұрын

To understand the Jewish Bible, you need Jewish translations.

@treystevenson9872

Ай бұрын

@@hrvatskinoahid1048 True, but the Jewish Bible is not nearly the written word of God as it covers only the first 5 books with their own interpretations even in that much of it.

@hrvatskinoahid1048

Ай бұрын

@@treystevenson9872 There are twenty-four books of the Jewish Bible.

But when you say the text, which text. So there is in fact a text that is "the text " or until more texts are discovered ?

@rainbowkrampus

Ай бұрын

Dan has a short video about the history of the KJV that may be elucidating.

@blksmagma

Ай бұрын

No. When he says "the text" it means "the written or printed work being read at the moment". What you're doing is referring to The Text. Which is adds a level of context not intended.

Kind of sounds like that's what the Fathers would have thought if they were reading the Septuagint...

So, did Babylonian gods had children??

@digitaljanus

Ай бұрын

Yes, they were a familial pantheon much like the Greek, Egyptian, and Norse pantheons, with some divinities being children of others.

I have another hangup with the KJV. At the end of the book of Matthew it has Jesus saying, "and lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world," whereas newer versions use the word "age" instead of "world," which would seem closer to the Greek word "aion," which (at least according to my rudimentary research) seems to refer more to the concept of time. My KJV purist friends don't like the word age being used there. My question is, would the word age be more true to the original text than the word world?

Such a greek tragedy!

I can prove it's not Jesus. "And you shall say to Pharaoh, 'So said the Lord, "My firstborn son is Israel." (Exodus 4:22)

@GustavoMaldonado42

Ай бұрын

so did daniel see israel lol

@MitzvosGolem1

Ай бұрын

Quran says Israel 🇮🇱 43 times no Palestine in Quran. Quran Sura 5:20-26 Allah gave holy LAND of ______? To Musa Moses and his people Yehudi Jews. Was that land Brooklyn NY America? Muslims claim no Israel existed as a land only a people. Between Christian mistranslations and Quran it's insane alter history versions from their theologies .

@hrvatskinoahid1048

Ай бұрын

@@GustavoMaldonado42 "He called out and said, "Behold, I see four free men walking in the midst of the fire, and there is no wound upon them, and the form of the fourth one is like that of an angel."

@GustavoMaldonado42

Ай бұрын

@@hrvatskinoahid1048 oh alr cool

Once again, the atheists best friend

In light of the Triune God, the plural Gods works anyway. And already in chapter 2 we see the "rock" destroying the conglomeration of the old kingdoms of the earth and becoming a mountain (kingdom) that rules the earth. Jesus, being God himself in the flesh, is the ruler of that kingdom ("mountain").

@hrvatskinoahid1048

Ай бұрын

The belief in a divine trinity is an idolatrous concept, since it is a belief that God (or according to some, a second separate divinity) has characteristic features, and the characteristics of a body.

@henryschmit3340

Ай бұрын

@@hrvatskinoahid1048 Not according to the Bible.

@hrvatskinoahid1048

Ай бұрын

@@henryschmit3340 According to the oral Torah.

@henryschmit3340

Ай бұрын

@@hrvatskinoahid1048 Which is written down for all to read.

@hrvatskinoahid1048

Ай бұрын

​@@henryschmit3340 The oral Torah is the explanation of the Pentateuch. You know that, right?

Man will keep changing it. We don’t even know what happen that time.😊

Is there any Babylonian writings or indications that this entire story is not a fabrication by the Christian authors?

@digitaljanus

Ай бұрын

There were no Christian authors, the Book of Daniel is of Jewish authorship at least a century or two before Christ. However, I believe Dan has covered in past videos--pretty recently if I recall--the ahistoricity of Daniel.

Question: Is this because the term Ben HaElohim is used in the new testaments to define Jesus? And why is Jesus called, Ben HaElohim consistently rather than Ben Adoni or Ben El (if I got that right)?

He means ' the other three'.... not the other four

The "form of the fourth is like the Son of God" because Nebuchadnezzar has blurred vision. The form is blurry because in the furnace, Jesus' mathematical value is 50. In order to resurrect (with Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego) His mathematical value should be 52 (with God) or 42 (without God.) Jesus' value needs to increase by 2 (to get to 52) or decrease by 8 (to get to 42.) Until one or the other happens, his form will stay blurry. His form needs to stay blurry in order for Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego NOT to resurrect. Those around the three need to clearly see the power of God. Go back to Daniel 3:25 and count up 2 to verse 27. Others see the power. Count down 8 to verse 17. The three declare God's power.

@solidstorm6129

Ай бұрын

What? Where did you get this numerology from?

But since Elohim is also used as singular, wouldn't it then be a matter of interpretation whether it should be "a son of gods" or "a son of El"? I don't think the verse has any indicators of which way Elohim should be translated. Bu the way, wasn't The God of Israel on His way to become strictly monotheistic during the period it was written or have I misunderstood something? It would therefore be quite controversial to talk about a son of gods in the same period (unless the author was against such theology)

Peter was right. Paul completely poisoned the well. If Christians had been raised studying the Hebrew of the Tanakh, they would understand drastically more about the tradition. If Christians were competent in the Hebrew, they could then understand various philological assertions regarding the texts and lexicon. They miss the beauty in things like: אִם־תִּשְׁכְּבוּן בֵּין שְׁפַתָּיִם כַּנְפֵי יוֹנָה נֶחְפָּה בַכֶּסֶף וְאֶבְרוֹתֶיהָ בִּירַקְרַק חָרוּץ׃ Psalm 68:13 juxtaposed with לֹא־יַחֲרֹךְ רְמִיָּה צֵידוֹ וְהוֹן־אָדָם יָקָר חָרוּץ׃ Proverbs 12:27 Any deeper discussion regarding the presence of יַחֲרֹךְ has no relevance in their minds. Paul hindered Christians. I'm not a Christian, but I don't know what other to call that than a false apostle.

@hrvatskinoahid1048

Ай бұрын

After the Torah was translated into Greek as the Septuagint, it is permitted to learn Torah in one's own language from a proper translation.

@Azupiru

Ай бұрын

@@hrvatskinoahid1048 Who cares if it's permitted? If your misinterpretation as a result of translation is trash, it's trash. Sure you'll grasp the arc, but the finer points that compose the real body of the suppositions will be beyond you. This (Paul's error) has only created generations of people who have no idea what they are talking about. דּוֹמֶה דוֹדִי לִצְבִי אוֹ לְעֹפֶר הָאַיָּלִים הִנֵּה־זֶה עוֹמֵד אַחַר כָּתְלֵנוּ מַשְׁגִּיחַ מִן־הַחֲלֹּנוֹת מֵצִיץ מִן־הַחֲרַכִּים׃ also consider: וַתְּהִי שָׂרַי עֲקָרָה אֵין לָהּ וָלָד׃ Note that the "Cup of the Barren" (another thing that is difficult to find for someone who isn't acquainted with Hebrew) contains Saffron, an abortifacient. The i/a-q-r-h is also homophonous with 'yellow.' There is quite a bit that you are missing from the texts if you refuse to read the Hebrew and examine the Semitic languages.

@Azupiru

Ай бұрын

​@@hrvatskinoahid1048 Who cares if it's permitted? Sure you'll grasp the arc, but the finer points that compose the real body of the suppositions will be beyond you. This (Paul's error) has only created generations of people who have no idea what they are talking about. דּוֹמֶה דוֹדִי לִצְבִי אוֹ לְעֹפֶר הָאַיָּלִים הִנֵּה־זֶה עוֹמֵד אַחַר כָּתְלֵנוּ מַשְׁגִּיחַ מִן־הַחֲלֹּנוֹת מֵצִיץ מִן־הַחֲרַכִּים׃ also consider וַתְּהִי שָׂרַי עֲקָרָה אֵין לָהּ וָלָד׃ Note that the "Cup of the Barren" (another thing that is difficult to find for someone who isn't acquainted with Hebrew) contains Saffron, an abortifacient. The i/a-q-r-h is also homophonous with 'yellow.' There is quite a bit that you are missing from the texts if you refuse to read the Hebrew and examine the Semitic languages.

@hrvatskinoahid1048

Ай бұрын

​@@Azupiru Gentiles are obligated to learn the 7 Noahide laws. They have no obligation to learn Hebrew.

@Azupiru

Ай бұрын

@@hrvatskinoahid1048 Essentially, "Everyone has the right to remain ignorant." Congratulations. No one is taking your ignorance from you, yet, but also, considering your ignorance, no one really cares about your opinions of the texts or the traditions.

Who should I trust? God's word or Dan McClellan?

@waynefeller

Ай бұрын

Lol! Dan is giving historical, linguistic, cultural, and authorial insight into the Biblical text. Your plain text negotiation does not have more validity just because you think it does.

@Abuhonda

Ай бұрын

God’s word

The KJV has 12,000 mistranslations and differences compared to the Aramaic text.

@Harmelcon

Ай бұрын

That's quite a few, seeing there isn't all that much Aramaic in the OT.

@royalcreations3970

Ай бұрын

@@Harmelcon That isn't the Aramaic I'm referring to. In the Near East their scriptures are still in Aramaic. Compared to their full Aramaic Bible the KJV, Latin and Greek are flawed. The Bible is a Semitic book written by Semites to Semites originally in Hebrew and Aramaic. The flawed Greek text unfortunately is what went westward which is what all European text are derived from. Mistranslations got carried over in all of these versions. In the Near East they only trust the Aramaic text.

@Harmelcon

Ай бұрын

@@royalcreations3970 Got it.

I think you're wrong that this would not be a common interpretation. A lot of Evangelical Christians see Jesus everywhere in the Old Testament. They think the Captain of the Host in Joshua, the stranger in the night Jacob wrestles with, and even Melchizedek are all appearances of Christ in the Old Testament (and numerous other examples). The fourth figure in the furnace would also be interpreted that way by those people regardless of the translation.

@Essex626

Ай бұрын

@Bible-Christian I do want to point out that these are by definition an imposition of interpretation onto the text, not a drawing out of the intent of the author: eisegesis rather than exegesis. I'm not taking massive issue with that, every denomination and sect must do some of that to arrive at cohesive meaning. But it does not seem credible to believe that the authors of those OT books intended those to be pre-incarnate appearances of Christ.

@pansepot1490

Ай бұрын

Interesting how Jesus is never mentioned by name in the OT.

@willernst2721

Ай бұрын

​@Bible-Christianjust wanted to say that I enjoyed how clear and concise your comments are. I also wanted to say to be careful in this channels comment section. A lot of the people who comment here are gnostics or occult members and like to play a game in which they try to trick Christians into denying God, (unfortunately I'm not joking). They seem to think it will harm said Christians which says a lot about their understanding of God. Anyway have a blessed day and keep helping to plant seeds.

@What_If_We_Tried

Ай бұрын

@@willernst2721 Verifiable facts are so scary for apologists of all stripes. Do you hold a rosary, or a KJV bible while listening to Dr. McClellan's videos lest doubts enter your mind, and a demon from hell grabs you by the foot and yanks you into the flaming abyss? LOL

@willernst2721

Ай бұрын

@@What_If_We_Tried while I listen to Dan's videos I hold hope in my heart that God will use me to help bring any of the lost that are here back to him. As for demons, devils, and the like I have absolutely no fear. I only fear God.

Dan, in the Blue Letter Bible LXX I see, “ὅρασις τοῦ τετάρτου ὁμοία υἱῷ θεοῦ” and not αγγέλου.

@roweraptor

Ай бұрын

Not a scholar on the Hebrew Bible or LXX by any means (I have an MA in NT but that's hardly relevant here), and I'm not sure where exactly Dan is getting his source, but it looks at a cursory glance like you both might be right. Every text of the LXX I have in my library includes the additional Song of Azariah and refers to the fourth figure as an αγγέλος θεοῦ in v.49, as text from the narrator, and as ὁμοία υἱῷ θεοῦ in v.92, as described by the king. I don't have any LXX texts without the Song but from what I can find online I'm also seeing υἱῷ θεοῦ.

@josephgrasso6802

Ай бұрын

@@roweraptor thanks for taking the time to reply. I’m curious as to whether the idea of a messenger of the gods was utilized interchangeably within the wider Hellenic world for divinity.

Dan: Jesus in the Gospels is merely a divine being Also Dan:

How is “a son God” any different to “the son of God”?

The term God or Gods is a direct reference to men as in John 10:34 and elsewhere in the gospels. They also use the term Angels for their selves. The Sadducees were adamant on being recognized as a "final authority". Striking the spirit or breath from the text.

@josefpollard6271

Ай бұрын

In addition I would like to add that eternal life does not refer to some future estate. It is current with the moment, i.e. 1 john 3:15. And Heaven is the sky.

For me, the bible is just one long "snuff" movie, glorifying death, torture slavery, war, vengeance, bigotry, sexism, special privilege, with the odd good miracle like feeding the 5000, or the magic resurrection, for comic relief. And sure, you can "negotiate" with the bible [ie: cherry-pick] to prove that it is a fascist playbook, OR a nice fluffy text on how the lion will lay down with the lamb, etc, etc.

It’s still a common interpretation and a rational conclusion

Based on the context of the book of Daniel and Daniel's faithfulness to Yahweh, I believe the spirit upon Daniel was the Spirit of the God Daniel worshipped, not the spirit of the Babylonian gods. Although the phrase "spirit of the gods" is used in Daniel 5:14, it is likely that the Babylonian king, Belshazzar, is referring to Daniel's exceptional wisdom and insight, which he recognizes as being similar to that of the gods of the Babylonian pantheon. However, Daniel's own perspective and faithfulness to Yahweh throughout the book of Daniel make it clear that his wisdom and abilities come from the one true God, Yahweh, and not from the Babylonian gods. So, while the language used in Daniel 5:14 may be ambiguous, the overall context and Daniel's own testimony point to the Spirit of Yahweh being the source of his wisdom and insight. It's the same thing for that passage it doesn't matter if the word is God or gods what matters is the God their referencing which is the same God Daniel worshipped But I am curious what does the original translation say is it Son of god's or angel of god's ?

TRUST IN THE LORD YOUR GOD AND KEANT NOT UNTO YOUR OWN UNDERSTANDING !

@waynefeller

Ай бұрын

Caps lock stuck again?

Its still confirms the Christian belief cause they're words are reflecting their pagan belief like when he said that the holy spirit of the gods in upon him he was referring to the spirit of the true God

@solidstorm6129

Ай бұрын

Huh? That’s not in the passage, is it? Quite the stretch there.

@isrealgabriel8591

Ай бұрын

@@solidstorm6129 I don't say that's what the passage literally said, I'm saying if you read it in context when the pagans said that the holy spirit of the gods is upon him logically you'll know that they were referring to the spirit of the True God but cause of they were pagan that's how they speak like wise with the son of the gods

@isrealgabriel8591

Ай бұрын

@@solidstorm6129 people belief's influence the way they talk but you'll still know what they're referring to in general

@isrealgabriel8591

Ай бұрын

@Bible-Christian i don't say that the concept of the holy spirit is pagan I meant they said it like that cause of their pagan beliefs, people belief's influence the way they talk and you'll know obviously they were talking about the one true God And I'm actually a Christian btw

@solidstorm6129

Ай бұрын

@@isrealgabriel8591 and if it really was read in the context of pagans, it would not be as such, as they had no understanding of a “spirit of the True God”.

Hey Dan could you pick on some JW theology.

The KJV continues to influence anglo speaking christians...

@waynefeller

Ай бұрын

And…?

@mendez704

Ай бұрын

@@waynefeller And the anglo saxon world is just a tiny minority among christians.

It's "a son of God", that's not a mistranslation. You might say identifying it with Jesus is a misinterpretation, but the translation choice is correct.

@adbenkunkus

Ай бұрын

No, because it also depends from the context 🙄.

@annaclarafenyo8185

Ай бұрын

@@adbenkunkus It's the son of God in context. It just might not be Jesus.

So for hundreds of years, everyone got the translation wrong yet somehow you figured it out. Loll pathetic

@maklelan

Ай бұрын

No, there are dozens of English translations that are older than me that translate this correctly.

LOL 😂 NO problem Dan : NAS has Son of the gods : the person would be the pre- incarnate JESUS anyway = ( the Visible YHWH) of Genesis 19:24). You're trying to renegotiate the TWO Powers in Heaven israelite theology of the Hebrew Bible: the Trinity comes from this theology: NOT made up by the council of Niceae that you as a Mormon believes. Always love Your Dogma: it's NOT the Data you think it is.

playing the same hole on the clarinet again and again, la la la, "a God", "a God"... The use case "member of the class" is not the only one, and is not even a common one. When we say this is a banana, we just describe what it is, we are not necessarily interested in identifying the member of the class. So the septuagint says: υἱῷ Θεοῦ, Son of God, without article BY NO MEANS though, this is not a case of identifying a member, none cares for a membership Instead is a case of describing what this person is like, just that