Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Dan McClellan

Members
  • Posts

    390
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Dan McClellan

  1. 18 hours ago, provoman said:

    So lets discuss the topic at hand "tiktok star debunking"

    Dan: the Vatican was named after Vatican Hill which is where it is located and the word Vatican just comes from a Latin root that means to prophesy

    OR  "Vatican" is derived from the name of an Etruscan settlement, Vatica or Vaticum, located in the general area the Romans called Ager Vaticanus, "Vatican territory" ~ Richardson, New Topographical Dictionary of Ancient Rome, p. 405

    OR, "The territory on the right bank of the Tiber between Monte Mario and Gianicolo (Janiculum) was known to antiquity as the Ager Vaticanus, and, owing to its marshy character, the low-lying portion of this district enjoyed an ill repute. The origin of the name Vaticanus is uncertain; some claim that the name comes from a vanished Etruscan town called Vaticum." ~ Catholic Encyclopedia

    Can there be only one? Alternatively, is each a learned opinion?

    Maybe you should quote Richardson accurately regarding the Etruscan roots: "derived perhaps from the name of an Etruscan settlement (possibly Vatica or Vaticum) of which all trace is lost." That's a speculative derivation. I went with one I feel is on surer ground. They can all be learned, but what is definitely wrong is the notion that I was debunking, namely that the name derives from some Etruscan deity. There's absolutely no evidence whatsoever that points in that direction. Even if the speculation that there was an Etruscan settlement by that name turns out to be accurate, there is nothing at all that points in the direction of any deity going by that name.

  2. On 12/8/2022 at 9:11 PM, gav said:

    I assume the above is the fruit of critical scholarship?

    My position there is the academic consensus, and in that video I even pointed to several publications that support my position. I also pointed out that the renegotiation of the commandment as requiring redemption comes from texts written much later (like Exodus 13). It's also the academic consensus that the Covenant Code is one of the earliest portions of Exodus and one of the earliest pieces of casuistic law in the Bible. 

     

  3. On 11/14/2022 at 2:26 PM, provoman said:

    Ok, in one of your videos you discuss mishkevei ishah" with a parrallel of "mishkav zachur", then, as I recall, you discuss that mishkav zachur referrs to pentration and that the penetrated is blameless.

    And it appears you have deleted the video wherein you discuss mishkevei ishah and mishkav zachur.

    1) משכבי אשה is indisputably related to משכב זכר, and I shared the scholarship (and I highlighted Olyan excellent paper on the topic) that suggests the most likely understanding of the term refers to the active partner. I pointed out that the text likely originally referred only to the active partner, and that the evidence indicates the one passage that assigns guilt to the passive partner seems to have undergone textual change. 

    2) I first talked about those phrases in my video #14, which is still up. I'm pretty sure I've never deleted any TikTok video, but I've definitely not deleted any on this topic. I have had one video deleted because folks claimed it violated community guidelines, but I don't remember what it was about. 

  4. 20 hours ago, provoman said:

    he has on his youtube channel videos on the subject. his premise seems to be that the meaning of "mishkevei ishah" (“after the manner of lying with a woman”-this is not his comment) should be considered in comparison to "mishkav zachur" (**** intercourse). If I understood him correctly he essentially explains that only the top has done anything wrong.

    If I understand him correctly, he asserts that because no other societies prohibited homosexuality or that other societies permitted male-male **** intercouse between different social classes, then we should not presume that God prohibited the House of Jacob from engaging in homosexual acts. Again, this is if I understood him correctly.

     

    (I used this https://www.rabbinicalassembly.org/sites/default/files/public/resources-ideas/source-sheets/tol-parashot/aharei-mot-k-doshim.pdf   for the definitions of the Hebrew terms)

    You have not understood me correctly. I have been consistent and clear about my position and about my non-devotional & non-dogmatic methodological approach in my several videos on TikTok.

     

  5. Hey, everybody! Some friends here have asked about this in the past, so I'm happy to let y'all know that my new book, YHWH's Divine Images: A Cognitive Approach, is now available. While hard copies are available for purchase at Amazon and other booksellers, I chose to publish it as an open-access volume, so a PDF of the book is freely available for download at this link:

    https://www.sbl-site.org/assets/pdfs/pubs/9781628374407.pdf

    Here's a brief description of the book:

    Quote

    In YHWH’s Divine Images: A Cognitive Approach, Daniel O. McClellan addresses the longstanding question of how it is that divine images could be referred to as if they both were and were not the deities they represented. Drawing insights from the fields of cognitive linguistics and the cognitive science of religion and applying them to the remains from first-millennium BCE Egypt, Mesopotamia, Anatolia, Israel, and Judah, McClellan develops a theoretical framework for divine agency and divine images in ancient Southwest Asia that explains this apparent paradox. He then applies that framework to the Hebrew Bible to show that the presence of the God of Israel was similarly manifested through material media devoted to communicating the divine.

    If this is a topic that interests you, I hope you enjoy the book, will share it widely, and will let me know what you think!

  6. 4 hours ago, Calm said:

    How would you suggest teaching the concept given the other scriptures using “precept upon precept”…it seems a common sense idea after all?

    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.

  7. 16 hours ago, Calm said:

    So is this in reality not related to the original scripture at all?

    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.

  8. 8 hours ago, Islander said:

    Again, I cited Lev 10:1 as an example of God taking issue with a way of worship that was not the prescribed one. The sons of Aaron thought they were in the clear. After all, fire is fire, they thought. 

    Nope. As I pointed out to you, it was an explicit violation of the law, not an assumption. 

  9. On 6/18/2021 at 7:25 PM, Islander said:

    People are free to do what they will and often do. There are many things that are expressly prescribed or prohibited in scripture. But, it is precisely scripture which point to and describes for us the character, atributes, history and promises of God. However, the argument relates to: is such a practice outside of God's revealed truth and thus, in fact, contrary to the will of God? God is not fond of people improvising on what He has decreed.

    "Now Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took their respective firepans, and after putting fire in them, placed incense on it and offered strange fire before the Lord, which He had not commanded them. And fire came out from the presence of the Lord and consumed them, and they died before the Lord. Then Moses said to Aaron, “It is what the Lord spoke, saying, ‘By those who come near Me I will be treated as holy, And before all the people I will be honored.’So Aaron, therefore, kept silent.

    Lev. 10:1-3 

     

    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.

×
×
  • Create New...