LDS TikTok star debunks Bible conspiracies, misinformation

[provoman]

4 hours ago, Damien the Leper said:

No one is. You're projecting this silly argument victimhood. You have full opportunity to ask for references. Yet you don't care to ask. Instead you continue to  bludgeon a dead horse and continue to distract with what you feel was wrongdoing. I stated the history myself and this board has with Dan. We trust Dan and scholarship.

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?

[SeekingUnderstanding]

5 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?

Where is the conflict between the three statements? I’m not seeing it. 

[Navidad]

I think we will do much better in this dialogue if we don't make it about individuals, but about knowledge. Can we agree on that? Can we agree that knowledge in the fields of Biblical archaeology, history, literature, hermeneutics, etc etc have changed dramatically in the last 200 years? More importantly, that they will continue to change in the next 200 years as well. I don't know much, but I am pretty confident that our theories, constructs, data, and available evidence that we have now, will soon be wonderfully outdated, old-fashioned, and academically indefensible in another fifty to one hundred years. That is the way knowledge grows, expands, and yes, changes over lifetimes.

I remember when William F Albright was the acclaimed dean of Biblical Archaeology Studies in the US, if not in the world. He was a nineteenth century son of Evangelical missionaries (sorry about that) who went from obscurity as a graduate of a tiny college to fame in the discipline. What does one (maybe two) generations later say? "[Albright's] central theses have all been overturned, partly by further advances in Biblical criticism, but mostly by the continuing archaeological research of younger Americans and Israelis to whom he himself gave encouragement and momentum... The irony is that, in the long run, it will have been the newer 'secular' archaeology that contributed the most to Biblical studies, not 'Biblical archaeology." (Dever). Another says, "[Wright and Albright's] historical interpretation can make no claim to be objective, proceeding as it does from a methodology which distorts its data by selectivity which is hardly representative, which ignores the enormous lack of data for the history of the early second millennium, and which willfully establishes hypotheses on the basis of unexamined biblical texts, to be proven by such (for this period) meaningless mathematical criteria as the "balance of probability (Thompson)." I can't wait to see how Dever and Thompson's work is maligned in another 60 years (no offense meant to either of them).

When I was studying in the late sixties and early seventies, the work of Wellhausen and his famous JEDP hypothesis (Graf-Wellhausen)) was lauded by "secular" Biblical Literature and Studies Scholars. It was mandatory reading, even for conservative Evangelicals (so they could dispute it!). HA! Today? Within my lifetime? "The Documentary Hypothesis and the arguments that support it have been effectively demolished by scholars from many different theological perspectives and areas of expertise. Even so, the ghost of Wellhausen hovers over Old Testament studies and symposiums like a thick fog, adding nothing of substance but effectively obscuring vision. Although actually incompatible with form-critical and archaeology-based studies, the Documentary Hypothesis has managed to remain the mainstay of critical orthodoxy. One wonders if we will ever return to the day when discussions of Genesis will not be stilted by interminable references to P and J. There are indications that such a day is coming. Many scholars are exploring the inadequacies of the Documentary Hypothesis and looking toward new models for explaining the Pentateuch." (biblearchaeology.org). Today's almost canonized competence will be next decades' fog . . . that is the way academic knowledge develops. It is that way with Mesoamerican studies and with Biblical Studies.

Now, before someone says to me "You don't know what you are talking about related to the field of Biblical Studies," I will stipulate to that. There now we have that out of the way. However, I won't hesitate to suggest to all you bright, eager, and loyal scholars who are in your thirty and forties that constructs from your work will someday be fog as well. The sources you eagerly quote will be fog in another sixty years! And I think you should join in the celebration as new information and insights come into play.

Will development of the field of Biblical knowledge ever come to a conclusion? Probably not and I hope not! I am not a scholar of anything other than the admiration of scholarship, new knowledge, and learning. That is why for five years on this board I have inconsistently been consistent (except when someone here has riled me up with their broad generalizations about Evangelicals and non-LDS Christians while at the same time decrying the same about LDS Christians) about the need to value provisional certitude over and above certainty. Stuff changes. People change. Organizations change. Theories change. Ideas become obsolete. I am pretty much over the hill, but I will continue to climb the next one to learn all that I can before my capacity to learn turns to mush. I wish you all the same. And best wishes to you all.

Edited December 20, 2022 by Navidad

[Navidad]

On 12/18/2022 at 11:04 AM, Eschaton said:

One can certainly take spiritual lessons from the conclusions of Biblical scholarship if one wanted to, but Biblical scholarship itself isn't a spiritual endeavor - it's essentially the same as studying any other ancient text (The Illead, The Epic of Gilgamesh, The Aeneid) from a historical perspective. 

So you reject any and all supernatural influence in and on the Bible (from a historical perspective) . . . something tangible that can be studied? That, for me is what differentiates it from the Epic of Gilgamesh and the Iliad. Does the LDS church reject the influence of the Holy Spirit on Biblical literature, its transmission, content, and meaning?

"Biblical scholarship itself isn't a spiritual endeavor." Hmm. Methinks that theory of Biblical scholarship just might be missing something, huh? To me that is something akin to saying the study of the history of the LDS church isn't a spiritual endeavor. It may not be for some, but I am not even LDS and it inspires me spiritually!

How about the field of Book of Mormon scholarship? Any supernatural influence on its literature, translation, transmission, content, and meaning? Is the study of the Book of Mormon the same as the study of Middle Earth or Narnia? Or more realistically of Mesa Verde, Paquime, or Mayan stelae?

I guess you don't agree with me, and that is fine . . . but I do confess that I think that those who eliminate the supernatural from that which is inherently, by its very nature and at its very core supernatural, just might be missing some critical variables in their theoretical formations that by their very nature limit the completeness of their conclusions. Just to be clear, of course secular academic study and knowledge is necessary and vital to Biblical study - I stipulate to that. That is not what I am suggesting - don't turn me into a Fundamentalist. But removing the spiritual from an inherently spiritual book may lead to some faulty or at best, less-complete conclusions. Maybe some of you can recommend a book on "The Role of the Holy Spirit in the Creation, Formation, and Study of the Bible." That is one book I would surely read! Thanks.

[Navidad]

13 hours ago, Damien the Leper said:

I wasn't asserting some blind acceptance of what Dan says as it is quite possible to check out his claims and look for the evidence and decide for yourself. I have asked Dan many questions over the years because of my misconceptions and misinformation. The greatest one that comes to mind is when I posted this video:

I hope @Dan McClellan remembers this exchange somewhat.

I enjoyed watching the video. But I confess to being a bit confused. Is the narrator Dan? Is Damien the Leper the narrator and creator of the video? Is Dan Damien the Leper? Is this video posted here because it coincides with Dan's view of the development of monotheism and/or the Abrahamic faiths? Would the COCJOLDS Biblical Studies folk have a perspective on the truths contained in this video? Someone posted this video with a purpose in mind. What is that purpose? I acknowledge being confused by this aspect of this thread. Thanks to anyone who will help de-confuse me.

[Eschaton]

4 hours ago, Navidad said:

So you reject any and all supernatural influence in and on the Bible (from a historical perspective) . . . something tangible that can be studied? That, for me is what differentiates it from the Epic of Gilgamesh and the Iliad. Does the LDS church reject the influence of the Holy Spirit on Biblical literature, its transmission, content, and meaning?

 

The idea of the "supernatural" is quite recent - that category didn't even exist in Biblical times. 

Can someone who doesn't believe in the goddess Ishtar understand and study, academically, the epic of Gilgamesh? The answer is yes. Academic Biblical scholarship isn't theology. Theology is another branch of study and knowledge that does build in assumptions about God. Academic Biblical scholarship must set aside the question of the reality of the divine and deal only with ancient texts and artifacts. 

 

4 hours ago, Navidad said:

"Biblical scholarship itself isn't a spiritual endeavor." Hmm. Methinks that theory of Biblical scholarship just might be missing something, huh? To me that is something akin to saying the study of the history of the LDS church isn't a spiritual endeavor. It may not be for some, but I am not even LDS and it inspires me spiritually!

 

Is medical science missing something because there isn't a medical procedure involving prayer? Best I think to keep spiritual and scientific things to their own spheres.  

 

4 hours ago, Navidad said:

How about the field of Book of Mormon scholarship? Any supernatural influence on its literature, translation, transmission, content, and meaning? Is the study of the Book of Mormon the same as the study of Middle Earth or Narnia? Or more realistically of Mesa Verde, Paquime, or Mayan stelae?

I think Book of Mormon scholarship should probably look at it from the lens of 19th century American religious literature. 

 

4 hours ago, Navidad said:

 

I guess you don't agree with me, and that is fine . . . but I do confess that I think that those who eliminate the supernatural from that which is inherently, by its very nature and at its very core supernatural, just might be missing some critical variables in their theoretical formations that by their very nature limit the completeness of their conclusions. Just to be clear, of course secular academic study and knowledge is necessary and vital to Biblical study - I stipulate to that. That is not what I am suggesting - don't turn me into a Fundamentalist. But removing the spiritual from an inherently spiritual book may lead to some faulty or at best, less-complete conclusions. Maybe some of you can recommend a book on "The Role of the Holy Spirit in the Creation, Formation, and Study of the Bible." That is one book I would surely read! Thanks.

Again, what you're looking for is theology. There are lots of ways to study a text. 

[Damien the Leper]

11 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?

Um...what about the part where Dan explicitly debunks the the Vatica-Etruscan Goddess nonsense? And as @SeekingUnderstanding asked...where is the conflict in the 3 statements?

[Damien the Leper]

3 hours ago, Navidad said:

I enjoyed watching the video. But I confess to being a bit confused. Is the narrator Dan? Is Damien the Leper the narrator and creator of the video? Is Dan Damien the Leper? Is this video posted here because it coincides with Dan's view of the development of monotheism and/or the Abrahamic faiths? Would the COCJOLDS Biblical Studies folk have a perspective on the truths contained in this video? Someone posted this video with a purpose in mind. What is that purpose? I acknowledge being confused by this aspect of this thread. Thanks to anyone who will help de-confuse me.

None of that. I posted the video a long time ago. The author of the video goes by the YouTube name Evid3nc3. The only role @Dan McClellan had concerning the video was correcting misinformation about the development and writing of the OT text and its authors as well as dealing with a specific cult stand. Dan and I are not the same person. Though I wish there was a way to transmit his knowledge to me. He makes me an envious jerk. 

Edited December 20, 2022 by Damien the Leper

[Damien the Leper]

18 minutes ago, Eschaton said:

I think Book of Mormon scholarship should probably look at it from the lens of 19th century American religious literature.

Be careful of such a sentiment around here. There are zealots who'll gnash their teeth.

[Ragerunner]

I like his videos. Glad he takes the time to make them.

Edited December 20, 2022 by Ragerunner

[provoman]

4 hours ago, Damien the Leper said:

Um...what about the part where Dan explicitly debunks the the Vatica-Etruscan Goddess nonsense? And as @SeekingUnderstanding asked...where is the conflict in the 3 statements?

I am beginning to think there is a lack sincerity in your question.

 

Edited December 20, 2022 by provoman

[SeekingUnderstanding]

19 minutes ago, provoman said:

I am beginning to think there is a lack sincerity in your question.

 

Nice dodge. What exactly contradicts in the three answers? All three state that Vatican comes from the name of the place where it was built. Some mention that the name predates the Roman’s. Dan provides the root of the word in Latin. In what detail do they disagree? Aren’t you a lawyer?

[provoman]

20 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Nice dodge. What exactly contradicts in the three answers? All three state that Vatican comes from the name of the place where it was built. Some mention that the name predates the Roman’s. Dan provides the root of the word in Latin. In what detail do they disagree? Aren’t you a lawyer?

Is there a reason that you have resorted to insults, like others in this thread?

[Eschaton]

5 hours ago, Damien the Leper said:

Be careful of such a sentiment around here. There are zealots who'll gnash their teeth.

Ah well. I know some people have their heart set on historicity. But even the Bible, ancient as it is, has extremely limited historicity. Daniel for instance has no historicity at all - that's also pretty much true of the Torah. Something can be scripture with enormous theological importance without having the status of historicity. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 minute ago, provoman said:

Is there a reason that you have resorted to insults, like others in this thread?

Nice dodge yet again. Physician heal yourself:

55 minutes ago, provoman said:

I am beginning to think there is a lack sincerity in your question.

 

 

[Damien the Leper]

1 hour ago, provoman said:

I am beginning to think there is a lack sincerity in your question.

 

Not at all.

[Navidad]

4 hours ago, Eschaton said:

Ah well. I know some people have their heart set on historicity. But even the Bible, ancient as it is, has extremely limited historicity. Daniel for instance has no historicity at all - that's also pretty much true of the Torah. Something can be scripture with enormous theological importance without having the status of historicity. 

It is not a matter of historicity. It is a matter of Holy Spiriticity! Is it not? Be careful my friend, you used the word theological! Oh my!

[provoman]

2 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Nice dodge yet again. Physician heal yourself:

 

I do not consider my comment a personal insult.

[Dan McClellan]

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.

[provoman]

57 minutes ago, Dan McClellan said:

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.

Your speculation verses another's speculation about the names origin.

(The goddess thing, the pictures, it was all so absurd from that person, as though someone could not search the information....by the end, I thought "is he trolling for like")

Edited December 21, 2022 by provoman

[Damien the Leper]

2 hours ago, provoman said:

Your speculation verses another's speculation about the names origin.

(The goddess thing, the pictures, it was all so absurd from that person, as though someone could not search the information....by the end, I thought "is he trolling for like")

Is Dan speculating or are you asserting that he's speculating?

[Eschaton]

14 hours ago, Navidad said:

It is not a matter of historicity. It is a matter of Holy Spiriticity! Is it not? Be careful my friend, you used the word theological! Oh my!

As far as treating the text as scripture goes, yes, theology and the Holy Spirit are what matters. 

[Dan McClellan]

14 hours ago, provoman said:

Your speculation verses another's speculation about the names origin.

(The goddess thing, the pictures, it was all so absurd from that person, as though someone could not search the information....by the end, I thought "is he trolling for like")

No, it's a professional opinion from an expert in ancient languages that aligns with the academic consensus versus speculation. 

[Craig Speechly]

4 hours ago, Dan McClellan said:

No, it's a professional opinion from an expert in ancient languages that aligns with the academic consensus versus speculation. 

Hi Dan, big fan of your Tik Tok work here.  You may or may not respond, which I understand, but I do have a question.  You recently posted a Tik Tok deconstruction of the traditional Moses myth framing Moses as a historical memory created from escaped Egyptian slaves who settled in the Northern Hill Country of then Canaan.

My Question is:  How do you reconcile "Moses the myth" with the Pearl of Great Price, Book of Moses? Is the Book of Moses to be viewed as Pseudepigrapha? While I understand that Moses could not have written the Pentateuch, which was likely produced to give the Hill County Canaanites/Israelite people a founding story.  How do you reconcile LDS truth claims of the PoGP Book of Moses with a historical memory Moses? Thanks in advance.

Edited December 21, 2022 by Craig Speechly

[provoman]

On 12/21/2022 at 8:59 AM, Dan McClellan said:

No, it's a professional opinion from an expert in ancient languages that aligns with the academic consensus versus speculation. 

You provided your learned professional opinion.

Richardson, a Rome Prize Fellowship, a Fulbright Fellow in Italy (1949-50) and held fellowships from the Guggenheim Foundation, the American Council of Learned Societies, and the National Endowment for the Humanities., (also I believe he taught Latin as a Professor) offered his learned professional opinion.

And it is just a contest of "my Ph.D can beat up you Ph.D".

I apologize for using "speculation" rather than "learned professional opinion".

 

Edited December 25, 2022 by provoman