Jump to content

Dan McClellan

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About Dan McClellan

  • Birthday July 23

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Herriman, UT
  • Interests
    Scripture Translation Supervisor, PhD in Theology and Religion

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

Dan McClellan's Achievements

Rising Star

Rising Star (9/14)

  • Dedicated Rare
  • Reacting Well Rare
  • Very Popular Rare
  • First Post
  • Collaborator

Recent Badges



  1. I'm looking forward to the same. Things are changing. It's a slow process, and people are fighting against it, but we'll get there.
  2. I think we have to find ways to better deal with the reality that the KJV was heavily influential on the way the Prophet articulated the Restoration, with all its errors and shortcomings.
  3. I'd suggest teaching it from 2 Nephi and the D&C rather than going back to Isaiah. At least that way the teaching can be consistent from language to language and we don't have to try to skirt around all the languages where Isaiah is translated differently.
  4. That's correct. It has nothing to do with what the Hebrew was intended to do. The Bibles that preceded the King James Version tried a variety of ways to make sense of the passage, but the 1560 Geneva Bible seems to be the first to go with "precept upon precept, line unto line." The Bishops' Bible (of which the KJV is a revision) went in another direction, but the KJV seems to have adapted the Geneva Rendering.
  5. So the German versions are much closer to what's really going on in the text. The Hebrew is repetitive and nonsensical precisely because it is supposed to be mimicking unintelligible speech. This is why the very next line is "For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people." Literally, the Hebrew says tsav latsav tsav latsav qav laqav qav laqav. Isaiah is basically saying, "he's gonna say 'blah blah blah blah,' and you won't be able to understand." The translators in the 16th and 17th centuries didn't recognize this rhetorical device and tried hard to make some kind of sense of the words, which required some etymological fudging, but they came up with a plumb line and a word that refers to a precept or principle. The repetition includes the preposition la-, which refers to movement towards or benefit for, which they interpreted as "upon," and thus was born the phrase "precept upon precept, line upon line."
  6. Nope. As I pointed out to you, it was an explicit violation of the law, not an assumption.
  7. Except this isn't an improvisation, this is a direct and explicit violation of the law. The word translated "strange" in the KJV can refer to something foreign or unrecognizable, but it also means unauthorized or prohibited, and in this case refers to coals from a profane context (rather than a temple context), which is in direct violation of the law.
  8. This is anti-Semitic nonsense, but also a pretty laughable misunderstanding of the history and of the Sermon on the Mount. Matthew was a Judaizer. Nor is it prohibited anywhere, but it's a lot more complicated than that. The cult of deceased kin was absolutely normative in early Israel and early Christianity, and food offerings to the dead are even tacitly permitted by the Hebrew Bible. In fact, in Deuteronomy 26:14, all it says in relation to food offered to the dead is not to make any food offerings to YHWH if they come from food that has been offered to the dead. The idea there is to not mix the ritually impure with the tithe. Ritually impure doesn't mean "sin," or "wrong," either. The dead have absolutely always been a part of "our religious realm," even as some groups have fought against it for purposes of restricting access to power and resources. The dead and the divine have always been thoroughly interconnected. Then both Judaism and Christianity have shot beyond the mark since the beginning of their histories. Or maybe you just don't understand the history very well but still have strong feelings.
  9. Those aren't controversies, those are just lies, and profoundly idiotic ones, too.
  10. Vicarious liturgy was a part of Christianity from the beginning, and has always been a part of ancient Israelite practice. As early as we can distinguish Judahite and Israelite tombs from those of other societies, we have found mortuary chapels with representations of the dead that included petitions for the wellbeing of the dead as well as petitions to the dead for help. The earliest version of any passage known from the Hebrew Bible is a set of tiny rolled up silver scrolls dating to around 600 BCE that contain a version of the priestly blessing from the book of Numbers that was used as an apotropaic amulet that was buried with a deceased person and meant to protect them in the afterlife. Intercession on behalf of the dead began to invoke angels in the Greco-Roman period, primarily as a result of expanded literary activity and increased interest in the nature of the heavens within Judaism. The dead have always been invoked within Israelite, Jewish, and Christian practice, both to secure for them a better afterlife and to seek aid for the living.
  11. South Central, yes. Not Compton, Detroit, or NYC, but I did attend an elementary school that was 90% African-American and I did live and work for several years in Dallas, as well as in urban centers in other countries. I don't see how any of these experiences impact my ability to evaluate the data that have been gathered over decades regarding the relevance socio-economic trends and dynamics.
  12. See here you're asserting your own conceptualization of racism as something that is not attached to power structures in an effort to protect white interests and power structures, even after I demonstrated to you that that conceptualization is a revisionist one that was developed during the Civil Rights Movement precisely to protect white interests and power structures. You can't even engage the facts, you just have to ignore them and reassert your own naive rhetoric in the hopes it works this time. Good grief, do better.
  13. Any response that does not further use real or feigned naivety, fallacy, or rhetorical deflection just to avoid having to acknowledge the indisputable reality of systemic power asymmetries. Yes, I have been studying these approaches for many years, and I have found them entirely lacking. Their validity does not need to be relitigated every time someone tells me, "Nu-uh!" I consider carrying water for white supremacy to be inherently illegitimate, whether or not the individual does so knowingly. That was me for many years. As I have already posted in this thread, I recognize it's a big hurdle to get over to realize how harmful and corrosive that rhetorical position is. It took me years to get over it myself. Yes, those tenets are that these questions have been researched for decades and have ample data available, and that minorities have consensus perspectives that matter just as much as a white person's. Neither tenet is too much to ask.
  14. In other words, it's the agency of white folks that perpetuates the segregation. Our neighborhood here in Herriman angrily killed a proposal to build low-income housing nearby a few years ago. The discussions online were littered with references to "the kinds of people" that would be moving in. It baffles me that folks who think all this is ok actually presume to lecture others about what racism really is.
  15. No, I'm promoting allowing oppressed minorities to have safe spaces. Like I said to smac, none of your rhetoric works at all unless you deny the reality of systemic power asymmetries. There has to be a level playing field for your rhetoric to work, and you know there isn't, so you just have to refuse to address it. You have to just keep insisting on your rhetoric. It's just laughable.
  • Create New...