LDS TikTok star debunks Bible conspiracies, misinformation

[Nevo]

48 minutes ago, gav said:

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

More humility would benefit everyone, surely. But if scholars would do well to wear their learning lightly, so would non-scholars do well to wear their ignorance lightly and not dismiss decades (or centuries) of scholarly labor outright on the grounds that scholars have biases and sometimes change their minds (so why should we listen to anything they say?).    

[provoman]

6 hours ago, Nevo said:

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.

I am not sure what you are asking.

Rev and Dan had a back and forth on a subject. Which of the two is to be unquestioned? Which of the two gets to unquestionably declare the other wrong. 

Do we dogmatically take Dan as correct because of his hard earned degrees? 

Is there a reason to dismiss Rev?

 

[Nevo]

40 minutes ago, provoman said:

I am not sure what you are asking.

Sorry if I wasn't clear. I was asking for an example of this:

"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*."

[Nevo]

2 hours ago, provoman said:

Rev and Dan had a back and forth on a subject. Which of the two is to be unquestioned? Which of the two gets to unquestionably declare the other wrong. 

Certainly not RevTestament.

2 hours ago, provoman said:

Do we dogmatically take Dan as correct because of his hard earned degrees? Is there a reason to dismiss Rev?

Not in principle. There might be a possible world where some rando on the internet would know more about a subject than someone with four relevant degrees who is steeped in the scholarly literature. But Rev is not that unicorn.

Take this exchange:

• Rev: "[YHVH] was not some foreign name adopted by Israel. The name of God is embedded in the very language of Hebrew, and is unique to them in ancient languages - and by the way it is not Yahweh. It is Yehovah."
   
• Dan: "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."
   
• Rev: "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."

Here Rev attempts to school Dan on the correct pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton. Dan replies that Rev is wrong, that "Yehovah" is an artificial pronunciation created in the Middle Ages. Rev's rejoinder is, no, you're wrong.

For those who think that Dan's response was insufficiently humble and that Rev might have a valid point, there's a way to test that hypothesis. Go to the library and look it up.

If you happen across Theodore Lewis's enormous tome, The Origin and Character of God, you will find this:

Quote

Despite numerous scholarly treatments to the contrary, one can still find in popular discourse those who speak of the name “Jehovah” as the original name of “the Lord.” Historically, the name Jehovah never existed in antiquity. It is an artificial construct based on an erroneous understanding of the Masoretic pointing of the Hebrew text.

Due to the reverence for the divine name Yahweh (written in pre-Masoretic manuscripts without vowel indicators as yhwh), which was perceived to be holy, the tradition developed early to read a substitute whenever it was encountered. This tradition continues into the present, with observant Jews utilizing a variety of substitutes (e.g., Adonay, Lord, Ha- Shem, The Name, Adoshem, Lo[rd] + Name) rather than pronounce the name Yahweh. The tradition crosses over into English, where we find the Jewish tradition of substituting “G- d” for “God” and where most translations render Yahweh as “the Lord” rather than as a proper name (cf. too the proper names of El, such as El Shadday, usually rendered “God Almighty”).

The Masoretes who pointed the Hebrew text in the second half of the first millennium CE continued a tradition of reading the noun adonay, “Lord,” as a substitute for Yahweh. Similarly, the Septuagint and the Vulgate usually render Yahweh by “Lord” (kurios, dominus). The Masoretes guaranteed the continued use of the practice by graphically rendering the consonants of Yahweh’s name (yhwh) with the vowels taken from the word ʾădōnay. A similar substitution system, known as the Ketiv-Qere practice, was used by the Masoretes to indicate a preferred oral reading (Qere) in contrast to what was written in the received consonantal text (Ketiv), especially when dealing with textual corruptions. 

The result of this activity was an artificial hybrid form (“Yehovah”) that was never intended to be read. The vowels were merely perpetual indicators to signal readers to read “ʾădōnay” rather than “Yahweh.”

— Theodore J. Lewis, The Origin and Character of God: Ancient Israelite Religion through the Lens of Divinity (New York: Oxford University Press, 2020), 212.

 Dan is providing solid information. Rev is not.

Edited December 18, 2022 by Nevo

[Stargazer]

2 hours ago, provoman said:

I am not sure what you are asking.

Rev and Dan had a back and forth on a subject. Which of the two is to be unquestioned? Which of the two gets to unquestionably declare the other wrong. 

Do we dogmatically take Dan as correct because of his hard earned degrees? 

Is there a reason to dismiss Rev?

 

The possession of academic degrees does not necessarily mean that the possessor has superior knowledge or understanding. Degrees certify that the possessor successfully pursued a course of study. That's all.

I have an Associate Degree in computer programming. I've met programmers without any degree in programming who could program rings around me. I've also met programmers with a masters degree who couldn't program their way out of a wet paper bag. 

I find Rev's arguments to be sounder than Dan's. But this might be due to my own biases. Fortunately, my salvation depends upon neither one's argumentative soundness.

[Stargazer]

21 minutes ago, Nevo said:

Certainly not RevTestament.

Not in principle. There might be a possible world where some rando on the internet would know more about a subject than someone with four relevant degrees who is steeped in the scholarly literature. But Rev is not that unicorn.

Take this exchange:

• Rev: "[YHVH] was not some foreign name adopted by Israel. The name of God is embedded in the very language of Hebrew, and is unique to them in ancient languages - and by the way it is not Yahweh. It is Yehovah."
   
• Dan: "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."
   
• Rev: "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."

Here Rev attempts to school Dan on the correct pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton. Dan replies that Rev is wrong, that "Yehovah" is an artificial pronunciation created in the Middle Ages. Rev's rejoinder is, no, you're wrong.

For those who think that Dan's response was insufficiently humble and that Rev might have a valid point, there's a way to test that hypothesis. Go to the library and look it up.

If you happen across Theodore Lewis's enormous tome, The Origin and Character of God, you will find this:

 Dan is providing solid information. Rev is not.

Very interesting, but how does one pronounce God's name? 

[Nevo]

7 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Very interesting, but how does one pronounce God's name? 

Yahweh (probably).

Here is Lewis again:

"Historians of Israelite religion have confidently vocalized yhwh as Yahweh for years, and rightly so. Numerous lines of evidence both internal and external can be marshaled for such a pronunciation. That the first vowel is an a-class is clear from the abbreviated form Yah that occurs independently (e.g., Exod 15:2; Ps 68:5, 19 [Eng 68:4, 18]; Ps 89:9 [Eng 89:8]; cf. also yh yhwh at Khirbet Beit Lei), as a theophoric element in personal names (e.g., Nērî-yāh = “Yah is my light”; Nĕtan-yāh = “Yah has given”), and in liturgical expressions such as hallĕlû-yāh, “Praise Yah.” That the second vowel is an i-class is clear due to the regular formation of third-he verbs in Hebrew. . . . External evidence concurs. In Amorite personal names we find yaqtil forms such as yawi-ila, yahwi-dagan, yawi-addu (“DN lives/exists” or “DN brings life/causes to exist”). In Greek transcriptions we find both iaoue and iabe" (Lewis, Origin and Character of God, 211).

[Navidad]

8 hours ago, CA Steve said:

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!

 

 

 

 

 

Sorry . . . not me. I have never been much for brilliant arrogant doctors or incompetent ones with a great bedside manner. Any day, and twice on Sunday I will take a brilliant doctor with a great bedside manner. You are making a distinction that does not need to exist!

[Navidad]

2 hours ago, Nevo said:

Certainly not RevTestament.

Not in principle. There might be a possible world where some rando on the internet would know more about a subject than someone with four relevant degrees who is steeped in the scholarly literature. But Rev is not that unicorn.

Take this exchange:

• Rev: "[YHVH] was not some foreign name adopted by Israel. The name of God is embedded in the very language of Hebrew, and is unique to them in ancient languages - and by the way it is not Yahweh. It is Yehovah."
   
• Dan: "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."
   
• Rev: "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."

Here Rev attempts to school Dan on the correct pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton. Dan replies that Rev is wrong, that "Yehovah" is an artificial pronunciation created in the Middle Ages. Rev's rejoinder is, no, you're wrong.

For those who think that Dan's response was insufficiently humble and that Rev might have a valid point, there's a way to test that hypothesis. Go to the library and look it up.

If you happen across Theodore Lewis's enormous tome, The Origin and Character of God, you will find this:

 Dan is providing solid information. Rev is not.

RevTestament has helped me and inspired me spiritually over my past five years on this forum. That is some solid information perhaps I can provide you. You see RevTestament, in my life lives the origin and character of God. Oh, and that is not a hypothesis and you don't have to go to the library and look it up! it is my testimony to you about his impact on my life. Take care . . .

[CA Steve]

57 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Sorry . . . not me. I have never been much for brilliant arrogant doctors or incompetent ones with a great bedside manner. Any day, and twice on Sunday I will take a brilliant doctor with a great bedside manner. You are making a distinction that does not need to exist!

Actually, i am illustrating the distinction others are making in describing Dan. 

 

[Nevo]

25 minutes ago, Navidad said:

RevTestament has helped me and inspired me spiritually over my past five years on this forum.

I'm glad that has been your experience. That's a credit to both of you, I think. Not really relevant to this thread, but good to know.

[provoman]

3 hours ago, Nevo said:

Certainly not RevTestament.

Not in principle. There might be a possible world where some rando on the internet would know more about a subject than someone with four relevant degrees who is steeped in the scholarly literature. But Rev is not that unicorn.

Take this exchange:

• Rev: "[YHVH] was not some foreign name adopted by Israel. The name of God is embedded in the very language of Hebrew, and is unique to them in ancient languages - and by the way it is not Yahweh. It is Yehovah."
   
• Dan: "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."
   
• Rev: "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."

Here Rev attempts to school Dan on the correct pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton. Dan replies that Rev is wrong, that "Yehovah" is an artificial pronunciation created in the Middle Ages. Rev's rejoinder is, no, you're wrong.

For those who think that Dan's response was insufficiently humble and that Rev might have a valid point, there's a way to test that hypothesis. Go to the library and look it up.

If you happen across Theodore Lewis's enormous tome, The Origin and Character of God, you will find this:

 Dan is providing solid information. Rev is not.

Rev posted a statement.

Dan responded 'you are wrong'

Rev responded 'you are wrong'

You lambast Rev for 'you are wrong'; but appear to perfectly accepting that Dan did the same? 

 

 

[Nevo]

24 minutes ago, provoman said:

You lambast Rev for 'you are wrong'; but appear to perfectly accepting that Dan did the same?

Right. Because Rev was wrong (and Dan wasn't). Were the situation reversed, I would judge the matter differently.

[Dan McClellan]

On 12/16/2022 at 12:39 AM, RevTestament said:

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

I'm not on TikTok in order to be challenged by scholars. I publish in the field to be challenged by scholars. 

Quote

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?

That's a question that requires a book-length response. I'd recommend Daniel Fleming's recent book, Israel Before Yahweh, for the best discussion of the data. If you'd like my thoughts on the book, I have a review of that book, as well as Ted Lewis' The Origin and Character of God, and Robert Miller's Yahweh: Origin of a Desert God, coming out in the next issue of the Journal of the American Academy of Religion. The biblical text has to play a role in the construction of any theoretical model of the origins of YHWH, but there are inscriptional and other archaeological data to consider.

Quote

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. 

No, not maybe. You will not find a single scholar of Semitic languages who prefers your position over and against mine. 

Quote

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

Scholars always change their minds when the data demand it, and almost 75 years ago scholars realized there was not adequate data to substantiate the claim that el derived etymologically from a word for "power." This is not still being debated, you're just not familiar with the scholarship but still have strong feelings.

Quote

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.

An intermediate form is found in some places in the Sinai. None of it has any connection whatsoever to Hebrew, which wouldn't even develop as a language until after the Phoenicians stabilized the alphabet.

Quote

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

It absolutely indisputably did not develop from the Semitic word el and you have absolutely no data whatsoever that support that notion.

Quote

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 what evidentiary grounds do you assert Hebrew was a written language long before we have any evidence it was a written language?

Quote

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

And what data can you provide that suggests the scholars are wrong?

Quote

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

Not remotely the same thing and not remotely scholarly speculation. We can see the concept being developed within the literature of late antique Judaism. You're just entirely ignorant of the scholarship and so are just asserting assumptions.

Quote

Yes, the vav means "peg" as you say, and was typically pictured as a tent stake. That suffices in meaning.

Which is not a nail used in crucifixion.

Quote

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.

The logographic use of the characters disappeared long before they shifted to an acrophonic use, which is what allowed them to be used as an alphabet. Hebrew didn't even enter the picture until after that. This is basic historical linguistics.

Quote

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.

You are bafflingly uninformed about the development of Northwest Semitic scripts.

Quote

 

No. Actually Yahweh is an artificial pronunciation created after the Middle Ages by Gesenius.

 

My comments addressed Yehovah, but Yahweh is a scholarly reconstruction that aligns with Yahwistic theophoric elements in the ancient Hebrew onomastica and has the strongest etymological case. It may not be accurate, but it is the best we can do with the available data and we know for a fact that the name was not pronounced Yehovah. 

Quote

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.

No, that's just the vocalization from the word adonai that was superimposed upon the Tetragrammaton.

Quote

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.

This is Nehemia Gordon-level nonsense that you can't even begin to defend with anything other than assertion.

Quote

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.

I'm not holding my breath.

Quote

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

No, it's the overwhelming scholarly consensus and you can provide nothing but empty rhetoric in response.

[provoman]

2 hours ago, Nevo said:

Right. Because Rev was wrong (and Dan wasn't). Were the situation reversed, I would judge the matter differently.

You were and are referring to different opinions. You found a book that supports the opinion you agree with.  There is nothing really wrong with that.

But, at the time of the comment of yours that I responded to, neither Rev or Dan provided source(s).  There were simply two competing opinions, with each saying to the other "you are wrong". And in my opinion, based on a recent post of Dan's, he seems to suggest the issue is not settled, though he disagree with the counter-opinion.

Edited December 18, 2022 by provoman

[provoman]

15 hours ago, Nevo said:

Can you provide an example of this?

https://www.veed.io/view/e75c63bf-759e-45c2-a846-fdbe73747bd3?sharingWidget=true&panel=share

[Navidad]

12 hours ago, CA Steve said:

Actually, i am illustrating the distinction others are making in describing Dan. 

 

Fair enough. To my knowledge I have never met Dan, so I cannot, should not, and will not in any way describe him. It would be a pleasure and an honor to meet him some day, especially since we have in common the pursuit of a very similar PhD study format in England. I have met many wonderful Godly, spiritually minded Bible Scholars. I have also studied under some who were completely uninterested in any personal testimony (on their own lives) of the very literature they were teaching. I will ditto that for some church history (obviously a completely different discipline) professors. I have also had another church history professor from my early twenties who is now in his nineties and to whom I am dedicating a new book. Yet others remind me of my statistics professors at state universities - Sigh!

To be open and as a general observation, I am not a huge fan of scholars of doctrine, faith, theology, or Scripture who have lots of knowledge about, but no testimony of faith in their own personal lives (I am not relating that to anything about Dan - again as far as I know I have never met him) - although if he belongs to MHA, I may have. I never really enjoyed listening to someone give a talk as much as sitting around a social event with them in the evening where we are then peers.

I want to study and learn from someone who makes the faith and relevancy of neo-Assyrian study come alive in their own teaching, and more importantly, their life. I do know some Mormon and Anabaptist history scholars like that and others who seem to have simply found a niche. I want to know if, why, and how the study of ancient rites, beliefs, gods, myths, etc. is important to my spiritual well-being and growth today.

One of the primary reasons my wife and I attend an LDS ward is so that I can breathe life and a testimony (perhaps not what some would like however - I grant that) into my teaching about Mormon, Mennonite, Catholic, and Pentecostal influences in Mexican history. If I can't make religious Mexican history relevant in these young licenciado's lives then I might as well stay home with my horseradish, pecans, and ping pong table! Best to all.

Edited December 18, 2022 by Navidad

[Navidad]

12 hours ago, Nevo said:

I'm glad that has been your experience. That's a credit to both of you, I think. Not really relevant to this thread, but good to know.

I would hope that you do see the relevance of Biblical studies (what this thread is about) to spiritual growth (what each of our lives is about). I am not sure about the value of one without the other. Thanks.

[Navidad]

On 12/12/2022 at 11:52 AM, Eschaton said:

Interesting article about LDS scholar Dan McClellan’s work on social media debunking misconceptions and conspiracy theories related to the Bible:

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2022/12/10/jana-riess-lds-tiktok-star/

I'm not on TikTok but I've been following him on Youtube. It's great when people with a firm grasp on Biblical scholarship put information out in a way that's easy for lay people to grasp. Academic Biblical scholarship is one area that for decades has really been poorly understood outside of specialists in the field. There aren't a ton of Bill Nyes or Neil deGrasse Tyson types out there making Biblical scholarship accessible to the rest of us. 

 

I can't log into the Tribune link you post, so could you simply provide some examples of the misconceptions and conspiracy theories related to the Bible that you are referring to for us (me?). Thanks - I really don't have a context for this discussion.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

50 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I can't log into the Tribune link you post, so could you simply provide some examples of the misconceptions and conspiracy theories related to the Bible that you are referring to for us (me?). Thanks - I really don't have a context for this discussion.

https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTR4Ku58C/
 

This video is cited in the article. Anti-Catholic propaganda debunked

 

 

 

[Calm]

7 hours ago, provoman said:

https://www.veed.io/view/e75c63bf-759e-45c2-a846-fdbe73747bd3?sharingWidget=true&panel=share

Link didn’t work for me. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

7 hours ago, provoman said:

https://www.veed.io/view/e75c63bf-759e-45c2-a846-fdbe73747bd3?sharingWidget=true&panel=share

Two things can both be true. Scholars can be in a consensus that the verses don’t represent a general prohibition and also not understand what their motivation was for prohibiting the penetrator. It’s not rocket science. Would also help to link to the entire clip for context. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

33 minutes ago, Calm said:

Link didn’t work for me. 

Copy instead of clicking. 

[Navidad]

16 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Fortunately, my salvation depends upon neither one's argumentative soundness.

Well said!

[bluebell]

On 12/17/2022 at 9:49 AM, Navidad said:

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.

I've found that both are useful.  Likening the scriptures to ourselves is very important, but knowing the context of the scriptures and what the original writers were talking about is also very helpful.