LDS TikTok star debunks Bible conspiracies, misinformation

[Eschaton]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

I have a degree in history (just a regular degree, nothing fancy) and one of the main things our professors drilled into us was how often good historians disagreed with each other (especially when it came to really ancient history), and in more than one class we were asked to "defend" a certain historian's conclusions against another group assigned to defend the historian/s that disagreed with him.  And then usually, after everyone was yelling really loudly and things were starting to get heated, we'd have to switch and defend the opposing side just to keep it interesting.

That could be why I struggle to see "scholar" as being synonymous with unbiased and separate from apologist.   

Biblical scholars aren't "unbiased" they just are devoted to following historical and textual critical methodology. That does involve a fair amount of interpretation based on limited evidence. People have their pet theories that they defend. But what it can't be, if it's good scholarship, is beholden to some kind of faith position. You have to lead with the evidence, not try to force the evidence to confirm your theology.  

There are a number of areas of consensus in Biblical scholarship (Markan priority, for instance). So the methodology does bring about some convergence even among people with very different personal beliefs. In other areas there is less consensus. 

Edited December 16, 2022 by Eschaton

[Navidad]

8 hours ago, CA Steve said:

So are they exclusive or not?

I would not say they are exclusive. They are very different disciplines and roles. Can a person be a food critic and an excellent chef at the same time? Of course. Can an excellent chef be an excellent critic of her own food? Possibly, but it would be a challenge, would it not?

An apologist has and then defends her own positions on the interpretation, linguistic and literary analysis, historicity, literalness, intent, culture, and many more of the intricacies involved in Biblical textual hermeneutics. A Biblical Scholar has a viewpoint, and maybe even a faith that is informed by his scholarship. But his primary role is to instruct and inform others to do excellent Biblical scholarship, not to declare his conclusions or their resulting truth (for him) as THEE TRUTH.

The apologist informs someone with a different conclusion or interpretation about a text that she doesn't know what she is talking about. The scholar says tell me more . . . what might you know that I don't? Being a Biblical scholar is an extremely complex role, involving significant training in multiple disciplines.

If I insisted I was a history scholar, what would that really tell you about my expertise? Not much! I might go so far as to claim to be a scholar in postrevolutionary religious history in northern Mexico in the 1930s, but even that might be a stretch.

Think of the multiple complexities of claiming to be a Biblical scholar! I taught homiletics - how to rightly divide and proclaim the Scripture in a way that honors the listener and the writer's intent. That is a tiny discipline barely within the huge world of Biblical Studies. I would much rather have been a scholar of neo-Assyrian conquests, stelae, and military strategies, but I never could spell Sennacherib right nor get all the Tigleth-Pilesers in the correct order! Best to everyone.

[RevTestament]

On 12/14/2022 at 7:18 AM, Dan McClellan said:

Sounds like I picked the perfect medium, because you don't know what you're talking about.

You won't be getting any scholars on TikTok to challenge you is more like it.

On 12/14/2022 at 7:18 AM, Dan McClellan said:

This is partly correct, because YHWH didn't adopt the storm deity profile until coming into the northern hilly country, like from further inland in the Arabian peninsula. 

Your evidence for where YHVH came from, and how it is dated? Are you relying partly on Hebrew scripture and poetry for this assertion? By further inland in the Arabian peninsula do you mean Midian and Edom area? The true land of Sinai, where God told Moses the name YHVH? From the local Midianite vernacular/Semitic speech?

On 12/14/2022 at 7:18 AM, Dan McClellan said:

El is both the generic word for "god" and the personal name of the patriarchal high deity in the Northwest Semitic pantheon.

Maybe. By the time of Moses it was used generically in the Semitic languages. I  am not debating its earlier usage, or how the word came to be. 

On 12/14/2022 at 7:18 AM, Dan McClellan said:

The "power" etymology was rejected by scholars 75 years ago. The only people who still think that's what it means are folks who use the open-access commentaries and lexicons from the 19th century that are freely available on the internet.

Yeah, we've been over this before, and I know, scholars are never wrong, and never change their minds.... well except in this case.

On 12/14/2022 at 7:18 AM, Dan McClellan said:

There are no linguistic data that support the notion the Hebrew language developed from or as a result of any group's stay in Egypt. The influence of the Egyptian language on early Hebrew is easily accounted for by the observation that Egyptian hegemony was common in the regions of Canaan.

Um.. except it is seen in mines in the Sinai peninsula, and elsewhere as it began to develop. I agree that the Phoenicians rapidly developed it. Seemingly more rapidly than Israel.

On 12/14/2022 at 7:18 AM, Dan McClellan said:

The name Baal is utterly unrelated, etymologically, to the word El. There is no aleph in its spelling, it's just beth-ayin-lamed, and it is another generic word that can also function as a divine name. It means "lord," "master," or even "husband." 

It is a word that developed from the semitic El. Spellings may differ. It doesn't matter.

On 12/14/2022 at 7:18 AM, Dan McClellan said:

The alphabet was created by Phoenicians and just borrowed by Hebrew speakers.

I realize that the Phoenicians had a developed economy and "state" before the Israelites, which were still largely living a nomadic lifestyle in the hill country of Canaan, and so didn't leave any earlier evidence of their  alphabet in the region of present day Israel, which is what you and scholars rely on.

On 12/14/2022 at 7:18 AM, Dan McClellan said:

The invention of the alphabet started with the Phoenicians. That's simply not up for debate.

I realize  this has been the position of scholars for some decades now.

On 12/14/2022 at 7:18 AM, Dan McClellan said:

Each letter had a name, but assigning a semantic load to each letter is a post-biblical innovation of mystical traditions within Judaism.

Scholarly speculation.... much like speculating on whether the chicken or the egg came first.

On 12/14/2022 at 7:18 AM, Dan McClellan said:

They mean absolutely no such thing whatsoever. The he does not mean "behold," it originated in a pictograph of a person with arms uplifted in greeting, based on the word "ho!" a type of greeting. The vav represented a peg or hook, not a nail. The yod began as a pictograph of an arm, and the word yad means "hand."

Yes, the vav means "peg" as you say, and was typically pictured as a tent stake. That suffices in meaning. If you want to say that they hadn't invented the "nail" yet, fine. Tent stake will suffice. And yes, the yod  began as a pictograph of an arm, and the word yad means "hand." Wow, we agree on something. Yes, basically, all these letters began as a pictograph, and so had a "meaning" or a mind picture associated with them. To say they didn't have a meaning is pretty bold when it is pretty obvious that mind pictures of each letter is how the pictogram system developed. They definitely did have a meaning in mind as they wrote the pictures, and it is even seen in Hebrew words as you so aptly demonstrate. Thank you.

On 12/14/2022 at 7:18 AM, Dan McClellan said:

Yehovah is an artificial pronunciation created in the Middle Ages by the combination of the vowels from the Hebrew word for Lord, adonai (a longtime substitute used in place of the Tetragrammaton), and the consonants of the Tetragrammaton. It has no relationship to the pronunciation of the divine name prior to the Middle Ages.

No. Actually Yahweh is an artificial pronunciation created after the Middle Ages by Gesenius. You will not find the Yahweh pronunciation in antiquity nor in ancient Hebrew works. You will find Yehovah spelled exactly like that not only in the most ancient Masoretic texts but also throughout many other ancient Hebrew works. Yes, it is not spelled that way a whole lot in the Masoretic texts because they substituted other vowels to remind the reader not to pronounce it, because these were apparently commissioned works for the general Hebrew community. Sometimes the vowels of elohim were used, but often elohim is used with YHVH in the scriptures because you wouldn't want to remind the reader to say elohim in that instance because they would be forcing elohim elohim to be read. Anyway, we have been over this before as well, and Yahweh is a made up reading which appears nowhere anciently.

On 12/14/2022 at 7:18 AM, Dan McClellan said:

Very few scholars agree with the theory that the Masoretes were Karaites, and that vocalization of the divine name is actually just the imposition of the vowels from adonai, sometimes with the holem, but usually without. 

I will try to get a reference to support that the original Masoretic text was penned by a Karaite. As I recall the family line supported it.

On 12/14/2022 at 7:18 AM, Dan McClellan said:

That's a lot of mythmaking on your part, but that's the nature of dogmatism.

Yep. And believing in "yahweh" is complete mythology. LOL. 

Edited December 16, 2022 by RevTestament
typo

[provoman]

......

Edited December 16, 2022 by provoman

[Damien the Leper]

1 hour ago, provoman said:

......

Still waiting for a substantive response that deals with the scholarly perspective. When Rev provides a better argument...

[CA Steve]

12 hours ago, Navidad said:

I would not say they are exclusive. They are very different disciplines and roles. Can a person be a food critic and an excellent chef at the same time? Of course. Can an excellent chef be an excellent critic of her own food? Possibly, but it would be a challenge, would it not?

An apologist has and then defends her own positions on the interpretation, linguistic and literary analysis, historicity, literalness, intent, culture, and many more of the intricacies involved in Biblical textual hermeneutics. A Biblical Scholar has a viewpoint, and maybe even a faith that is informed by his scholarship. But his primary role is to instruct and inform others to do excellent Biblical scholarship, not to declare his conclusions or their resulting truth (for him) as THEE TRUTH.

The apologist informs someone with a different conclusion or interpretation about a text that she doesn't know what she is talking about. The scholar says tell me more . . . what might you know that I don't? Being a Biblical scholar is an extremely complex role, involving significant training in multiple disciplines.

If I insisted I was a history scholar, what would that really tell you about my expertise? Not much! I might go so far as to claim to be a scholar in postrevolutionary religious history in northern Mexico in the 1930s, but even that might be a stretch.

Think of the multiple complexities of claiming to be a Biblical scholar! I taught homiletics - how to rightly divide and proclaim the Scripture in a way that honors the listener and the writer's intent. That is a tiny discipline barely within the huge world of Biblical Studies. I would much rather have been a scholar of neo-Assyrian conquests, stelae, and military strategies, but I never could spell Sennacherib right nor get all the Tigleth-Pilesers in the correct order! Best to everyone.

Thanks Navidad.

I too would say they are not exclusive, and neither is Dan, in my opinion, when it comes to apologetics vs scholarship. 

[bluebell]

7 hours ago, Damien the Leper said:

Still waiting for a substantive response that deals with the scholarly perspective. When Rev provides a better argument...

Hopefully more posters with bible scholar knowledge will chime in (if we have them here).  Always good to hear multiple opinions on things from people in the know.

[provoman]

8 hours ago, Damien the Leper said:

Still waiting for a substantive response that deals with the scholarly perspective. When Rev provides a better argument...

"absence of evidence, is not evidence of absence".

One may be accustomed to how a supposed "participant" responds. Based on how that supposed participant responds, one might be of the opinion that it is futile to engage with someone who seems to project an attitude of "I have spoken, if you disagree with my opinion you are most certainly the one in error".   Even when that supposed participant acknowledges that a particular issue is not settled. So what the point in responding to someone like that?

Here is a comment from youtube that, in my opinion, sums it up, it is not my comment. 

Edited December 16, 2022 by provoman

[Navidad]

4 hours ago, provoman said:

Based on how that supposed participant responds, one might be of the opinion that it is futile to engage with someone who seems to project an attitude of "I have spoken, if you disagree with my opinion you are most certainly the one in error".   Even when that supposed participant acknowledges that a particular issue is not settled. So what the point in responding to someone like that?

Very well said. It poignantly points out the difference between the apologist/polemicist and the scholar who understands that with all she understands and knows, there is much more out there that is worthy of discourse and dialogue.

A little less than fifty years ago, I had the joy (?) of being a founding psychology faculty member at a rather conservative denominational college. The Biblical studies faculty was furious because the administration had funded and supported the development of a psychology department. After all, they said, all committed Biblicists understand that human problems are either physiologically or spiritually based. If the former, one needs a medical doctor, if the latter one needs a spiritual counselor - psychologists don't need to apply! We tried to have a discourse about the subject; no way, that wasn't happening. We heathen psychology professors (who had signed a statement of faith) were "the ones in error." That was settled - how did they know? The Bible tells them so!

I still have some scars from those early years. Some years later I went back and was invited to speak in the university (at that point) chapel service. There were around 6,000 students in attendance. The president asked me to share with the students about my journey back in the early days. It was rather cathartic for me. Oh, and the Bible faculty at that point whole-heartedly endorsed classes in the integration of psychology and theology! My how things change! Best wishes to all. 

Edited December 16, 2022 by Navidad

[MustardSeed]

Thank you, I’m now following him.  He’s got a very interesting page. 

[Calm]

nvm

Edited December 17, 2022 by Calm

[Pyreaux]

I think El Elyon is the Father of all 70 Lord-gods of the 70 nations, and that they are all similar to each other because of a common lore source and pedigree, not a copy or plagiarism. Ba'al (Lord) of Phoenicia, Bel (Lord) of Babylon, Moloch (King) of Ammon, Yhwh (Lord) of Israel. The theology is so similar, they all claimed to have a common Father and their main dispute was over whom off El's divine 70 sons was the true king of the council of gods. Thus, the names became interchangeable when psalms took from older Canaanite hymns from Ugarit and swapped the name of Ba'al for Yhwh as the true king of the council, showing the theologies are not so discontinuous. I would think the Biblical 70 Sons of El in the council as angelic beings would all have storm elements to them. Every Biblical spirit, angel, cherubim, and seraphim are described in the bible as winds, fires, whirlwinds and storm clouds. 

There was a true Ba'al copy though, Ba'al the Phoenician storm deity would become Zeus when the Phoenician princess of Tyre, Europa, brought Ba'al worship to Crete.

* A Euro coin, depicting Europa riding Ba'al in the form of a bull into Crete.

Edited December 17, 2022 by Pyreaux

[3DOP]

On 12/13/2022 at 3:14 PM, SeekingUnderstanding said:

And previously https://www.mormondialogue.org/profile/3610-maklelan/

Right Seeking Understanding. I thought he had been here for a lot longer than 2019. Thanks for confirming that my memory is not always faulty.

[gav]

16 hours ago, provoman said:

One may be accustomed to how a supposed "participant" responds. Based on how that supposed participant responds, one might be of the opinion that it is futile to engage with someone who seems to project an attitude of "I have spoken, if you disagree with my opinion you are most certainly the one in error".   Even when that supposed participant acknowledges that a particular issue is not settled. So what the point in responding to someone like that?

Yup, meaningful engagement becomes rather difficult once either party begins to adopt the "slam dunk" methodology.

[CA Steve]

4 hours ago, gav said:

Yup, meaningful engagement becomes rather difficult once either party begins to adopt the "slam dunk" methodology.

I am fine with a "slam dunk" methodology when it is being played by a professional who has the "hops" to back it up.

[provoman]

1 hour ago, CA Steve said:

I am fine with a "slam dunk" methodology when it is being played by a professional who has the "hops" to back it up.

If a person starts off with 'the meaning of X is not settled among the scholars';  then ends with in essence 'my meaning of X is the correct meaning. if you disagree, you are *insert political driven dog-whistles / ad hominem*.'; is that "hops" or dogmatism?

Edited December 17, 2022 by provoman

[Navidad]

3 hours ago, CA Steve said:

I am fine with a "slam dunk" methodology when it is being played by a professional who has the "hops" to back it up.

Your comment reminded me of a lesson I learned many years ago that may seem rather silly to all of you, but it is meaningful to me. In my early twenties, for years I was the English pastor of a Mandarin Church in SOCAL. In that role I gained an addiction to table tennis -commonly known as ping pong! I played hours upon hours every week. I played for fun, in tournaments, and to develop my skill to what I humbly believed was an excellent level! I then became a young professor and played by the hour in the student center, in the local YMCA gym, and in my basement. Not content with regular games we developed a game where the only way to get a point was to hit the ball back in such a way that the opponent could not return it at all - we called that a "miff" - one point! We had a student from Armenia who was the best I had ever seen. We played by the hours! I began serious competition. This is where I learned one of my very important life lessons. No matter what proficiency I achieved, there was always - always - always someone waiting around the corner who was better, more skilled, and more knowledgeable than me.

I then was invited to assist for several months in a rather unfortunate situation at a church in Pennsylvania. I knew the town because it was the hometown of the then US champion men's singles player. His family attended that church. I took the gig and flew regularly into Pittsburgh to preach and work with the elders of the church. Of course, I always took my paddles (different styles depending on my opponent) with me everywhere I traveled. I accepted dinner at the champion's mother's home in the hope that someday I would get to play him! She made a great Sunday dinner as well! To make a long story short (something I have no skill at) I never got to play him. It was a good thing. He would have beat me with the greatest of ease. His skill, knowledge, and passion for the game far exceeded my own.

You see, whether it is table tennis, Biblical studies, Mexican history, or growing horseradish (four of my favorite passions) there will always be someone who knows more, is more skilled, more passionate, and better at the subject at hand. In my thirties, I rarely played anyone who I thought I could not beat, nor could be beat by! I won and I lost.

That is the way it is with life, isn't it? I try and learn from every life opportunity. I am now 73 years of age. I help coach our local city table tennis team. To this day I rarely lose . . . but I know there will be the Tuesday night that someone from somewhere will show up and clean my clock! Whether it is knowledge of Neo-Assyrian history(read my former post), ping pong, or spiritual commitment to the Savior, there will always be someone who will better me. I kind of like knowing that. I don't envy those who never learn that lesson. The lesson of table tennis for me! Thanks all.

[Nevo]

17 minutes ago, provoman said:

If a person starts off with 'the meaning of X is not settled among the scholars';  then ends with in essence 'my meaning of X is the correct meaning. if you disagree, you are *insert political driven dog-whistles / ad hominem*.'; is that "hops" or dogmatism?

Can you provide an example of this? What I've observed so far in this thread is RevTestament posting misinformation and Dan correcting that misinformation.  

RevTestament's declaration that "he won't be getting me on there to discuss this stuff, but YHWH was not a storm diety from the south. El was not an individual god... Ba el...", etc., reminded me of Sam Harris's example of someone who knows nothing about string theory walking into a physics conference and announcing that "I think string theory is bogus. . . I'm not a fan." It's not an opinion that carries any weight because the person doesn't know what they're talking about.

[Navidad]

On 12/16/2022 at 9:16 AM, bluebell said:

Hopefully more posters with bible scholar knowledge will chime in (if we have them here).  Always good to hear multiple opinions on things from people in the know.

I may be goofy (probably no doubt about that) but I would rather hear from someone with more intimate knowledge of the savior than of the book.

[gav]

3 hours ago, CA Steve said:

I am fine with a "slam dunk" methodology when it is being played by a professional who has the "hops" to back it up.

The problem with slam dunk is 1. attitude(humility is a virtue) and 2. certainty. Nothing is certain in science or scholarly pursuits. Today's high probability, very likely or broad consensus can be upended tomorrow by a new set of evidence, discovery or finding.

Edited December 17, 2022 by gav

[Nevo]

5 minutes ago, gav said:

Nothing is certain in science or scholarly pursuits. Today's high probability, very likely or broad consensus can be upended tomorrow by a new set of evidence, discovery or finding.

Sure, but that doesn't mean that someone asserting that the earth is flat, or that the sun revolves around the earth, or that the moon landing was a hoax deserves to have their opinions taken seriously. Because "nothing is certain," doesn't mean that everyone has an equal chance of being right. Knowledge and expertise still matter. 

[Navidad]

2 hours ago, Nevo said:

Knowledge and expertise still matter. 

True! However I would suggest that knowledge and expertise are an ocean - deep and wide! Second, I would suggest that a couple of sentences on a forum do not reveal anyone's expertise or their lack thereof. I might say that YHWH is not a storm god from the south. What I may mean is that YHWH was not just a storm god from the south. Or I might mean that YHWH was not only a storm god from the south. This is not the place for exactitude, is it? Whole articles and books have been written on the subject.

After all, we aren't talking about a flat earth theory or that the moon landing was a hoax. We are more likely to talk about whether Daniel's interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar's dream has any prophetic significance. You might say yes! I might say no! Can either of us do so with very much certainty? I don't think so. Best.

Edited December 17, 2022 by Navidad

[gav]

1 hour ago, Nevo said:

Sure, but that doesn't mean that someone asserting that the earth is flat, or that the sun revolves around the earth, or that the moon landing was a hoax deserves to have their opinions taken seriously. Because "nothing is certain," doesn't mean that everyone has an equal chance of being right. Knowledge and expertise still matter. 

Agreed, but a little humility goes a long way... and it's more palatable all round. Triumphalism is not very palatable...

Ancient belief systems, we have patchy evidence for, and biblical scholarly discussions don't seem to be backed by the same scale or type of evidence that eventually refuted a flat earth and geocentrism, but now that you mention them, those were the ruling consensus at some stage and so a case in point. 

Edited December 17, 2022 by gav

[Nevo]

35 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I would suggest that a couple of sentences on a forum do not reveal anyone's expertise or their lack thereof. I might say that YHWH is not a storm god from the south. What I may mean is that YHWH was not just a storm god from the south. Or I might mean that YHWH was not only a storm god from the south.

???

When a poster says "YHWH was not a storm diety from the south" and "YHVH was not a storm god" and "Yehovah never allowed the people to depict Him in His House, exactly because He was not a storm god," I don't take them to mean that they think that YHWH was a storm god, but not only a storm god.

And when the same poster says things like "El was not an individual god," when there are literally hundreds of references to El (il(u)) as an individual god in the Ugaritic texts from Ras Shamra (see "W. Herrmann, "El," Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible, 2nd ed., ed. Karel van der Toorn, Bob Becking, and Pieter W. van der Horst [Leiden: Brill, 1999], 275), then I think we have enough information to say that they don't know what they are talking about.

[CA Steve]

2 hours ago, gav said:

The problem with slam dunk is 1. attitude(humility is a virtue) and 2. certainty. Nothing is certain in science or scholarly pursuits. Today's high probability, very likely or broad consensus can be upended tomorrow by a new set of evidence, discovery or finding.

I would much rather my surgeon was a brilliant arrogant doctor than an incompetent one with a great bedside manner.

And one can justify any belief by claiming that established contradictory views may be overturned in the future.

Tomorrow, Scientology may be vindicated, sign up now and beat the rush!

 

 

 

 

 

Edited December 17, 2022 by CA Steve