Good morning, everybody. Welcome, Hello everybody out there in speak Free radio
Land. Hello, Twitter, Hello Brady On, and hello rumble those of
you out there who are unaware. We are going to continue. There's a
little bit left in this video that I put together. Now, both of
those both of those videos were a Mythvision podcast. We're over three hours long,
so I broke it down a little bit. I'm sure there's more there
that you could get benefit from, but it was just a little bit too
much to show everything. So you can go to YouTube and find myth Vision
is all one word if you're interested. There's what I find when I listened
to Derek too long, especially when he's a you know, he's on the
screen talking, is that he seems artificial as whatever. It just doesn't seem
like he could. Doesn't come across as somebody who's not honest and sincere.
But the information that is accurate and that you can get something out of is
what I present, not the extra crap side comment nonsense that is also added
to it, the little destructive black pills that are thrown in there with you
know, some kind of political spin on them. I take that crap out
because same thing with NaSTA and format. The person doesn't need to go into
things that they don't understand and make themb statements. It discredits them on other
levels. Or you just realize, okay, well you got this right,
but you just got a long way to go, you know, so let's
go ahead and bring this up. We'll get it started right away, and
then once we're done with this portion, we're gonna go right into the Dan
McLellan Danny Jones interview where he he's discussing and I guess apologize, you know,
like an apologist. But he's a biblical scholar who put out some posts
after Ammin Hillman's David Ammin Hillman's appearance on Danny Jones, which maybe we'll watch
at some point, but he I did see it, but I'm just saying
we will together. He questions and challenges a few things, but I think
his answers are more discrediting to him, and I don't think he even realizes
it. It's a circular argument where it's you can't he can't step out of
the thing that was wrapped together and called the Bible in order to verify it
through historical accuracy. He just uses the Bible to prove the Bible. Well,
no, see, because it says so. It's like, that's not,
that's not that's not how you work that. Like, hey, I
have a book here. It's called priest Craft Beyond Babylon. I reference things.
Why because if I just told you it is so because I said so,
it wouldn't be a very good book. Right. I would love to
have armies of people who you know, incult this thing and say no,
you don't understand. It says so right here, So it must have been
happened. It must have happened. It must have been true, it must
have been real. Oh oh wait, there's references too, so apparently it
did. Oh oh yeah, how about that. Okay, so here we
go. Let's let's get this thing started so we can get going. Oh
by the way, speak free radio. I love you guys, wants you
to know, just want you to know. And I hope you enjoyed the
other couple of days when you've got a twelve twelve twenty two doctor Brian artists
talk that we did. There's a blast from the past, but it helps
to refresh the memory of the venoms, right because these are used in the
Burning Purple as well. That they talk about here in the Greek the Dionesian
Bacan cults, saturnal what do you call it, and potentially the the orphic
theophytes, the sybiling oracles, and also potentially in Christianity the venoms that are
in the drug that they use and then the antidotes to those venoms. Problem
with that is used to destroy your body. I don't know if they picked
up on that back then, but they wanted you to make the drug yourself
through your body, so they would slightly slowly poison you with venom with slits
in your arms until you were producing apparently the the antibodies or whatever they call
that whatever. The real reality of our medical crap is a tolerance, puilt
up or whatever. But that doesn't make for a healthy person, and as
sure a sect doesn't make for a natural person. If you're generating and producing
something, right, it goes right back to what we're looking every night with
these shots and now they're killing people. So hopefully you got a chance to
check out that doctor Brian artist that I put up on I believe it was
Wednesday, and you should check out the Rumble channel when you have a chance,
because I have Thursdays with doctor Peter Glidden. That aren't on the radio
show because it happened at eleven, but you can go to Rumble and watch
them. And last Thursday, yesterday, doctor Monso and doctor Peter Glittern were
on together. It was good times. Okay, here we go. I'm
gonna finish this up. I backed it up like three minutes because it was
kind of like in the middle of the practice practice prixis story, and I
wanted that to be a full thought because it's kind of interesting and it deals
with the Oh Jesus Christ, I didn't do anybody wrong, but guess what
you just did? You got yourself kicked up. No, he was a
douchebag. He was acting like a douchebag. And you're a douchebag as well,
So go fuck yourself, Scott, Scott. Yeah. Later moderators moderate,
all right, fucking little children, I here go fuck yourselves. Yes.
And the binding of Isaac indicates a source derivative relationship. One A Thomas,
king of Beotia, married Nephii, a cloud goddess created in the image
of hera by Zeus. Two A Thomas and Nephili had twin children, a
son, Phrixus and a daughter Helli. Three. Athamos afterwards rejected Nephili and
married Eno. Four. Ino hated her stepchildren Phrixus and Helli, so plotted
to have them killed by their own father. Number five. Eno bribed messagers
who told King Athemis that the oracle of Delphi, speaking for the god Apollo,
required the sacrifice Phrixus on Mount Lafisian in order to end a famine in
Biotia. Number six, just as a Thamis was about to sacrifice his son
Phrixus, Zeus or Nephili in other versions sent a golden winged ram to rescue
Phrixus and Helly by flying away with them. Number seven. Helly fell off,
hence the Hell's pont Helly's Sea. Number eight. The ram brought Phrixus
safely to Colchis, Georgia. Number nine. Ingratitude did I say, prixis
that'n Phrixus sacrificed to Zeus the golden ram that saved him and hung its golden
fleece on an oak tree. Number ten. Now, while it may seem
quite inconsequential, probably the most important ingredient of this myth is that it is
the prologue of the epic of the Argonauts, who will come to Kulchis years
later to bring the famous Golden fleece back to Greece. We can recognize the
resemblance to the binding of Isaac in Genesis twenty two. To test the faith
of Abraham, God orders him to sacrifice his only beloved son on Mount Moriah.
Abraham submits to the command and binds his son. At the last moment,
God sends an angel and interrupts the sacrifice. Abraham sees a ram stuck
in a bush and sacrifices that ram instead of his son. Yeah, there
was going to be a kill in there, no matter what right Abraham had
to kill something. But note the inversion of one small detail. In the
Greek version, the ram is killed first, then its fleece is hung in
a tree, whereas in the Biblical version the ram is first stuck in a
bush and sacrificed afterwards. This inversion of detail can lead us to wonder whether
these stories could both derive from a common source. And apparently that that kill
zone where Abraham was murdering everything he could, that's where they made the dome
of the Rock, right, that's over the top of apparently the big stone
that he was doing all his killings at. That's what everybody's talking about when
they're talking about the temple, the dome, right what they want to destroy
and build a new temple on. It's a sacrificial stone, according to them.
One could derive from the other, or that the resemblance is only due
to coincidence. Therefore, we must examine the place and roll of these stories
in their own contexts, respectively, the epic of the Argonauts and the Biblical
narrative. See Godfrey's comparisons here. One, you've got this divine command to
sacrifice one's son. It's real in the case of Isaac, lie in another,
in the case of Phrixus, Phrixus's stepmother bribed messengers to tell the father
that God required the sacrifice. One the father's pious, unquestioning submission to the
command. Two the last minute deliverance of the human victim by a divinely sent
ram direct command to the father in the case of Isaac, direct command to
the sacrificial victim in the case of Phrixus. Three the fastening of the ram
in a tree or bush before the sacrifice of the ram in the case of
Isaac after the sacrifice of the Ram. In the case of Phrixus four,
the sacrifice of the Ram as a substitute for Isaac as a thanksgiving for Phrixus.
What is significant is that these narrative units in common to both stories exist
at a level independent of the particular the stories. And here's something Phrixis gets
in a lot of friction from the way he did. Imagine that. Imagine
a deity sends you a flight out of danger, and then as a thank
you, you killed the pilot and hang it in a tree. That's essentially
what Phrixus did. That's not a thank you. They can be inverted,
reordered to create different stories. The question to ask is are these units similar
by coincidence or has one set been borrowed from the other. That particular detail
about the ram in the tree or thicket is certainly distinctive enough to justify this
question in relation to the whole set. To consider the Bible's quote unquote Old
Testament books being written as late as the Persian or even Hellenistic era, and
given the proximity of Jewish and Greek cultures, the possibility of direct borrowing cannot
be rejected out of hand. Secondly, the chances of the Jewish story of
the Binding of Isaac being influenced by Greek myth is increased if both stories are
located in a similar structural position within parallel narratives. Both near human sacrifice narratives
serve as the prologus to larger tells of one divine promises of a land to
be inherited by a hero's descendants, two a special divinely chosen people. Three
the chosen ones, Oh nice thing, pre arranged time schedule of four generations.
I have a hard time looking at these types of structures from above anymore
and not seeing what Michael Tellinger was showing. That these look like the plugins
on a circuit board, and you know that they were just using sonic technology
back then, So the reverberation on the on the pillars, it's just it's
it's hard not to see that now. And when you see some of the
other structures and what else was around him in some of these sites, they
look certainly like a over the head circuit board. Very interesting since before the
land would be inherited. Four deliverance through a leader who initially protests because he
stutters. Five. An additional delay because of human failure to the stuttering part
is really interesting, like that is a that is a very distinct commonality between
the two holds fast to a divine promise six A wandering through desert with a
sacred vessel seven guiding divine revelations along the way. Not only are both tells
of escape from human sacrifice prologs to these larger comparative narratives, but they also
serve as a reference point in both. They hold the respective larger stories together
by serving as the origin point of the divine promises that guide the subsequent narratives
of journeying to a promised land, and that origin point is reference by way
of reminder throughout the subsequent narratives. The Biblical narrative is about much more than
the way the children of Abraham inherited the land of Canaan. The laws in
the Pentateuch are often remarkably alike the laws proposed by Plato. You've got laws
that require a essential religious authority. You have laws of a need for pure
bloodlines, especially for priests, laws that condemn homosexuality, witchcraft, magic laws.
Unless you're nless, you're the inner group who does that as a matter
of habits of inheritance, boundary stones, laws of allowing slaves to be taken
from foreign people's only, laws against the need for a king, laws governing
involuntary homicide, laws regarding rebellious children, laws against usury, against taking too
much fruit from one's fields. But here's the catch there, everybody, the
laws against usury were only they only applied to the group themselves. If you
were an outsider, they could do anything they wanted to you. And this
is the part that I don't understand how that doesn't translate over to why Christianity.
Christians would think that this is their God when they specifically say that any
outsiders that aren't in the Judean center group are fair game. The ten Commandments
don't apply to you. They can do whatever they'd like. You are fair
game because you're not them. And quite a few more, and often found
listed in the same order between the Greek and Hebrew texts. The ideal state,
moreover, is divided into twelve lots of land given to twelve tribes.
The king, it is warned, is subject to the vices of love,
and this will lead to oppressive tyranny. One might think here of the Sins
of David and Solomon. Wagenbaum applies the structural analysis of myths as developed by
Claude Levi Strauss the Bible, and one can see his coverage is much more
extensive than can be covered in a few blog posts. Here is where Godfrey
is focusing only on structural place of the Phrixus Isaac sacrifices in their respective wider
narratives. The Phrixus episode serves as an introduction to the adventures of Jason and
the Argonauts, and this set of adventures functions as an explanation of the founding
of the Greek colony of Syreni. Later, after the descendants of the Argonauts
had settled on Thera, a direct descendant of Euphemus was commanded through the Delphic
Oracle to lead his people to settle and establish Syrene in fulfillment of the promise
made at the time of the Argonauts were retrieving the fleece of the ram that
had saved Phrixus. This descendant was known as Battus, a name that means
stutterer. He argued against the divine command on the ground, and Moses had
erin with him because he was a stutterer. Round that he was not a
great warrior and that he had a speech impediment, but the Delphic oracle refused
to listen to reason and made him do as he was told. Anyway,
This sounds like Moses. Herodotus tells us that Battus ruled Sirreene for the familiar
forty years. Hmm, that doesn't sound familiar. We are reminded of the
promise to Abraham that his descendants would settle in Canaan after four hundred years of
slavery in Egypt. Egypt serves as a delaying detour on their way to their
destiny, as thea was in the Greek myth. God commands Moses to lead
his people to Canaan by invoking his promise to give it to the fathers Abraham,
Isaac, and Jacob. Moses at first refuses by pleading that he stutters.
If Baptist ruled the Argonauts for forty years, Moses, also once called
a king and known as a king in Philo, led his people for forty
years. Also, this narrative structure joining Abraham to Moses echoes with accuracy the
promise made to Euphemus and its fulfillment descendant Battus. Both Moses and Battis invoked
their troubles speaking in order to avoid their divine mission, and both ruled over
their people during forty years. Therefore, the similarities between the interrupted sacrifice of
Isaac and that of Phrixus appear as part of a similar narrative structure. It
seems as though Abraham plays two different characters from the Greek epic King Athamas,
who almost sacrificed his son Phrixus an episode from the beginning of the epic,
and the Argonaut Euphemus, who received the promise of land for his descendants an
episode from the ending of the epic. The order of the episodes has been
reversed in the same way the detail of the ram hung on the tree after
the sacrifice in the Greek version appears inverted to the account of the ram stuck
in the books before the sacrifice in Genesis. The similarity between Phrixus and Isaac
is not sufficient by itself to speculate about any possible borrowing, but when placed
in the wider framework of the epic of the Argonauts and the foundation of the
colony of Syrene, it allows us to question a likely influence of the Greek
mythical tradition on the writings of the Old Testament, Herodotus's histories as the blueprint
for the first books of the Bible, that the narratives and Herodotus have influenced
the Biblical narrative. But there is one significant clue thus far missing. Wagenbaum's
remarks, what might the founding of a colony in Sirene and Herodotus have to
do with the settlement and kingdom established in Canaan by Israel? Wagenbomb points to
an answer. We must investigate the writings of another famous Greek writer to find
the description of a state meant to be a colony, a state that would
be divided into twelve tribes and ruled by perfect God given laws, the ideal
state imagined by Plato in his Laws. How late was the Bible and who
really wrote it? Neil Godfrey again comes through, as has Russell Gamirkin and
several of the scholars we've brought up so far. But I'm impressed with what
Neil puts here. Here's what he has to say. It has become a
truism that the Bible, or let's be specific and acknowledge we are discussing.
The Old Testament or Jewish Hebrew Bible is a collection of various books composed by
multiple authors over many years. All of these authors are said to have coincidentally
testified to the one and only true God of the Jewish people. The mere
fact that multiple authors, spanning generations wrote complementary works, all directed at the
reality of this God working in human affairs is considered proof that we are dealing
with a cultural and religious heritage, a common tradition belonging to a single people.
Over time, a few scholars have challenged that thesis, and the most
recently published of these is Philip Wagenbaum. He writes to have a single writer
for Genesis through Kings and possibly for other Biblical books contradicts the idea of the
transmission of the divine Word and of a tradition proper to a people. The
idea of a single author does not conflict with the understanding that the sources of
the Bible were drawn from archives of Israelite and Judahigh kings, as well as
mesopotam and Canaanite and other sources. Watchinbaum claims that the traditional scholarly hypotheses of
authorship and origins of the Bible are in fact secular rationalizations of cultural myths about
the Bible. Let us imagine that Judea has now been conquered for a century,
and its sacradotal class is now fully hellenized. That dude looks like he's
listening to Metallica. A man educated in the Greek fashion, perhaps in Alexandria,
has grown up learning all the Greek classics Homer, Hesiod, Herodotus,
the great tragic playwrights, Plato, and that which he may have read in
the Alexandrian canon established by Aristophanes of Byzantium and Aristocus of Samothraci. He wants
to create a literary work that can compete with those he has read, one
that will give birth to his political and religious utopia Israel. On the one
hand, theories about the origins of the Bible tend to admit that the same
writer wrote some books. On the other hand, several books and articles compare
Greek myths with the Bible. It is the absence of a synthesis of all
these data that is questioned here. Could it be the other way around?
Philip Wagenbaum rejects the alternative suggestion that it may have been the Greeks who were
influenced by the Bible or related stories from cultures neighboring the Jews. Essentially,
the reasons for resisting this idea are One, Greek authors were generally identifiable personally,
and they quite openly refer to their predecessors and contemporaries whom they emulated.
And yeah, they didn't hide their sources, and they didn't hide who they
were imitated. They had no need to copy the Bible and leave no evidence
that they had any awareness of it. Two, the Greeks portrayed their myths
through painting and sculpture, and here there's no suggestion of borrowing from Jewish myths.
The only contemporary images from Palestine are Canaanite relics. Three. Wagenbaum argues
that almost every chapter of the Bible corresponds to a Greek myth, whereas the
opposite is not true. Four Greek myths are linked together in a logical narrative
progression, from the birth of the gods themselves down to the Trojan War and
the beginnings of the historical era. This rich and complex intertextuality has allowed the
Biblical writer to create an original epic on a fantastic level of sophistication. We
will see how the Greek mythical genealogies have been dismantled and reconstructed through a specific
filter. I hope that everybody watching this goes and subscribes to Nil Godfree's blog.
He is doing fantastic work mining scholars that are not well known, and
we're highlighting them today. Please show him your appreciation. Show Russell Gamerkin.
Much of his work was shown in this documentary, and I want more people
to show support to the good scholars we bring forward here on myth vision to
be continued. As we unravel the intricate narratives of the Bible, it becomes
increasingly evident that understanding Abraham's tell require a detour through the honors of Hellenistic lore.
This synthesis of Greco Biblical traditions isn't merely an exercise in historical curiosity,
but a pivotal key to truly grasping the layers and intricacies of Biblical narratives.
If today's exploration has peaud your interest, I urge you to like this video,
subscribe to our channel, and join the conversation in the comments below.
I hope you tell us what your favorite part of this video was we're just
scratching the surface, all right, so you get it. That is mythvision
on YouTube. Again, if you listen to Derek too long, he might
be discussed by him. But the information is good sometimes until they get into
political crap then they look at it. So anyway, anyway, so that's
that part. Now, there's a lot more to that video. Even so
it seems like he was stopping there. I think there was actually a lot
more, but I just had to cut it down for our purposes today.
And now we're going to start off the next section, and we have to
do it this way because you'll see, well some of you will see because
you'll be watching it. Other just I'll have to explain it to you why
this is so uh, this fits too well not to not to do done.
First, you guys didn't think we're gonna have a song today. We
have a song. Oh we've got a song. Yeah, you ready for
it? Well, let's put this on full screen. I just lack the
burricane duct birds carel play. It's up, Duckler. That's all a mystery
for rereck history or rewrite history. The tails every day that tails of gabbing
too bad and be behind you to find you just to every tails of gabbing
too bad and tails tails. All right, So we have Scrooge McDuck who
may resemble some of the banking elites there, and we have it on it.
It's Disney cartoon right now. Let's go take a look at her our
min attraction here today. Then you'll see exactly why I did that. For
some of you out there, we'll see it. So this one is titled
look at his shirt, says ducktails. It's a green ducktail shirt. He's
wearing a Disney shirt. And we know all about Disney and their psychological operations.
So straight up in your face, there's some ducktails for you. This
says. Biblical scholar response to Emmin Hillman, was Jesus Christ a trafficker?
Dan McClellan Dan McKellen is a biblical scholar and an active member of the Church
of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints. He's a Mormon. McLellan was a
winner of the Society of Biblical Literatures twenty twenty three Richard's Award for Public Scholarship.
Just a bunch of people massaging each other's egos and giving each other awards
for agreeing with each other. So there's lots of chapters here, all right,
So we're probably gonna jump around a little bit. So we're gonna list
in a Dan's academic background. We're gonna waste a little time with that.
And then the Sep. Two age. It predates the Tora question mark fake
dead seas when they don't like something, they just say it's not real.
Oh, that doesn't fit our narrative. Therefore it's something else. In accuracies
within translations Biblical scholar paradox Dan's personal bias, which isn't really all that important.
He just admits that he has one, which is, you know,
admirable, I guess, and Moses never existed? Was Jesus Christ a drug?
That's taking it a little too out there, but the response is interesting,
did the Bible misrepresent oh sorry, misinterpret words? And then Jesus in
the public park this is where he gets into the amin's stuff and he kind
of starts going into it. And so this is two hours long, so
we're not gonna be able to watch the whole thing together. But let's get
us started and then maybe we'll do a little bit more tomorrow. So we're
gonna we're gonna get let Dan talk. We're gonna let him say his thing.
Let's just try to do the right about twelve seconds in, No,
not that far. So doesn't always like pair up to what you're doing here.
Come on, bro, don't screw up on me now with your little
spinning button dial thing here whatever, let's just start here. A great and
Jewish studies, and I wrote my masters thesis there on textual criticism of the
Septuagint. Then I went to another master's degree at a university up in Canada
called Trinity Western University that was in Biblical studies, where I started working on
cognitive linguistics and wrote my thesis there on the concern So the two things I
look at real quick and so those are the yuse out there and speak free
radio Land are not gonna be able to see this. He's wearing the green
ducktail shirt. That's a Disney thing. That's one right number two. Look
at his whatever it is. It's either a wristband or to watch now.
I don't know if it's because it's June and he's showing his support for wokeness
but it's a rainbow wristband or watch band, and it's waved around an awful
lot because he uses his hands of talc like and Italian does. So I
get it, but it's just a It makes you wonder is he a Mormon
with a with a tendency for bums, you know, as in butts,
or is he just wearing it because that's the hip thing to do when you're
a scholar and you're in academia. I don't know sextualization of deity in the
Hebrew Bible, So when they talked and thought about God's anciently, what exactly
what are they thinking about? And then I did my doctoral dissertation under the
watchful eye of Professor francesca's Areca Pula at the University of Exeter, and that
deaf Francesca Sabraca Pulo that is someone who is referenced in highly regarded by myth
Vision podcast Derek, which is interesting because she challenges some of the stuff that
the Bible states. So I found that interesting that he worked under her yet
doesn't seem to have the same views on stuff was on concepts of deity and
divine agency. So now I'm looking at what is a god, but also
what is a divine image? And how does like an idol? How does
that work? What was the logic they were using for how? And we
were told that the Midaia's media right, the mother, the one who was
mixing up the potions. The image was what you focused on when you're going
through the right of This could be both the deity and not the deity.
And then I looked at how we can better understand some features in the Bible
related to divine presence associated with that. And during the the COVID lockdowns,
I was at home with not a ton to do, and I started seeing
people post in TikTok videos on Facebook and Instagram and elsewhere where. People were
talking about religion in the Bible, and I kind of was wondering, who's
in charge over there? So got an account and went and checked out TikTok
and saw that there wasn't really who's in charge over on YouTube in TikTok,
so there wasn't enough censorship for him. Wow, that's quite the statement.
There were not a lot of credentialed experts who were commenting, but there was
a lot of discussion going on about religion and the Bible and stuff. So
I thought I might as well just kind of position myself as a bit of
an umpire calling balls and strikes out there. So my channel is all about
tru self appointed expert too. My motto is data over dogma, the idea
of being that I'm going to try to Yeah, he says that, but
he rejects or ignores data when it doesn't support his situation or his position.
Center the data what we can say about the Bible and religion based on actual
research, and try to prioritize that over and against the dogmas, whatever they
may be from whichever side they come, whether they're related to identity politics,
or they're related to one's own personal interests or things like that. And I
was kind of expecting to not find a big audience for someone who kind of
stands in the middle and tries not to play for either team, But to
my surprise, there are a lot of folks who are interested in that.
So it's been it's been a fun ride. But sometimes I also run into
people who push back an awful lot, and so I've made a lot of
wonderful friends getting into this field. I'm kind of learning well the academic world
of the study of the Bible and religion, I knew a little better,
but getting into the social media world or the Bible in religion, I had
to go through my own course. Yeah, you seem like you're you're the
guy that calls out the bullshit when it comes to religion. I try to.
Yeah, and you said you also had what was your degree in classics?
And let me just say, Dan seems like a humble, nice guy.
I'm going to be critical here because of what's that what's at stake?
Okay, but don't think that I am not accepted, you know, appreciative
of what he seems like a good individual. I just think he has very
strong, maybe you know, highly conditioned views on things. So I did
a minor in classical Greek. A minor in classical Greek. Okay, so
that's interesting. So the minor in classical Greek versus the thirty five years of
study of texts that nobody else translates that Amin has. So there's going to
be a difference here in what is perceived, and that's that should that should
not go with you know that that's probably should go without saying, because that
would be a whole lot more experience and exposure to the material that Amine has.
And I'm not saying that Amine isn't biased. I'm just saying that if
he's talking about a word, he's probably he probably knows the definition and how
it's used. So you do, so you do have some knowledge of classics,
and you did study classics a bit little bit. Yeah, although I
transitioned into septuagen Greek New Testament Greek, and that's kind of where I've spent
most of my time. Okay, what is the difference between a classical scholar
and a Biblical scholar? So a person who studies classics is primarily engaging in
the Greek and the Latin literature from the middle of the first millennium BCE down
into the first few centuries CE, and I use BCE and CE where people
use BC, N A, D and so classics doesn't really have a ton
of overlap with the Bible. But the people who wrote and transmitted and consumed
the New Estimate and as well as the Septuagint, we're also people who engaged
with classical literature. And there's a lot of influence from classics on the Bible,
but a lot of people who study the Bible will also study what's going
on in the classical world because really of the influence. Yeah, it's you.
You frequently see a lot of overlap classicists going into biblical studies, Biblical
studies sometimes going into classics. So there are folks who try to straddle both
of those fields. But that's a very difficult thing to do. Okay.
So classics do entertain the Bible. Oh yeah, not all of them,
but but there are plenty who will work with early Christianity just because early Christianity
was engaging with with Greco Roman intelligentsia, So there's relevance to what's going on
there. Okay. So I discovered you obviously after you made those two videos
from the response videos from Amen. So I'm looking at Danny Danny Jones this
shirt and that looks like butt heads mouth, like his teeth on his shirt.
I wonder if that's a Beavis and Bud shirt. It's podcast. He
said two things that you responded to. The first one was about the word
trio. Trio is a a Greek root word that he claimed was the meaning
to apply a drug to the skin yea, and he also mentioned that it
was to be stung by the godfly. I think that was those are two
separate meanings for rio and then the other. The other point was the he
believes that the Septuagint came before the Torah, and he thinks that the the
the Greek was translated into Hebrew. So which one of those you want to
start on? Which would we talk about first? Whichever we can? Uh?
Probably, let's why don't we start with the septuigin. Okink, that's
a little a little easier. Okay, there's there are no specialists in the
study of the septuagent who would do anything other than laugh at that, can
you so? Because they control the information, they're going to laugh it off
if it's challenged. That doesn't really stay much. Just to give people who
might not be familiar with what we're talking about, can you give sort of
a basis of the period of time we're talking about in history and give me
an idea, like just lay out the argument. Yeah. So the development
of the Hebrew Bible is pretty complex, but in short, there were a
lot of traditions, a lot of poetry, some legal texts that began to
be written down between around eight hundred BCE. And down to around four three
hundred BCE. And as they're being written, they're being collected, they're being
redacted and edited, and they're coming together into this corpus of texts. Now,
most most scholars these days would probably say that it's not until around the
middle of the second century BCE, around the rise of the HASMANI in Kingdom.
So this is a this is the Maccabees. This is the story of
the redidication of the temple that Hanukkah is based on. But before that time,
there were a lot of Jewish folks who weren't speaking Hebrew anymore. They
were speaking Greek because may anymore or ever where, they just taught Greek for
the first you know, that was early in language, potentially at least the
ones that were living there for the last hundred years. In the after Alexander
in three point thirty three, I believe it was conquered the area. Mainly
they were the ones who were living in Alexandria in Egypt. In the late
fourth century BCE, Alexander the Great sweeps through all this area, takes it
over, and then as his successors are fighting for control of these regions,
tell me the land is hellenized, meaning that Greek becomes kind of the lingua
franca. This is what if you want to engage in international business and sometimes
even business between one city and another. Usually a type of Greek is going
to be the language of wider communication. And so a lot of Jewish folks
are living in Egypt and Alexandria, They're living elsewhere where people are being raised
speaking Greek is their native language, not Hebrew. Now Hebrew is still being
spoken. So it wasn't a dead language. It wasn't dead language that I
don't know where on earth that idea comes from, because we we'll talk about
that later. We'll let Diamin explain that it was a dead language. And
also that you can't take a seven thousand or eight thousand word language and upscale
it to so you can going from a greater to a lesser rather than a
lesser to a greater. You're not going to be able to identify all the
words in a bigger lexicon with a limited one of your own, so it's
nearly impossible to go to the other direction with it. We have letters and
scriptions and things in Hebrew all the way down past the life of christy what
does that even mean? A dead language? How can a language be dead?
What does that mean? So if people are growing up learning a language
as their first language and then they're out there using it in public discourse,
the language evolves. So you get new words are brought in, old words
change their meaning, you get romantic drift. Right, that's one of the
things that can happen. There's a lot of stuff that can happen. But
once a language is no longer being learned as a first language, and it's
not being used in public discourse, when it's limited only to texts or rituals
or things like that, then you don't have that continued change and of evolution.
And at that point they tend to refer to So what you're seeing here,
isn't it an explanation as to why the Hebrew is not being used very
much? And what Hammond says is that the Hebrew version of the Bible didn't
come around until much, much, much later than the Hellenistic period, and
that the Old Testament, for those of you out there who didn't know that
this is the argument here, wasn't written or an archive of something that happened
as far back as when they claim Moses was around, but rather or Abraham
even but rather that it was constructed during the Hellenistic period and it was heavily
influenced and used, you know, it was it was utilizing the Greek mythos
that was popular during that time. Or to a language that doesn't it's frozen,
it's not changing at all. They will usually refer that as a dead
language. So like Latin, for instance, nobody learns Latin as their first
language. There are people who can speak it fairly fluently, but it's limited
to usually liturgical things and rituals and things like that. So we're not building
the Latin vocabulary. The syntax is not changing. You don't have old guys
going in my day we use that Latin word to mean this, and the
kids these days, you know, they'red You don't have that kind of thing.
So they used to think that Hebrew was more or less a dead language
by the time of Jesus, and that most everybody spoke Aramaic. But there's
a growing contingent. I would say it's probably, if not about fifty percent,
someonodog or the el spoke Greek scholars probably even more than that think that
Hebrew was still quite active. Yeah. Now, now most people think Jesus
probably spoke some degree of Greek. I think it was probably some marketplace Greek.
You know, like the way that I can speak modern Greek. I
can't hold a conversation, I can't argue with somebody in Greek, but I
can find my way to the restaurant, or you know, I can buy
or sell what I need. So that was and you know, Cephriis was
right over the hill from from Nazareth. So if he was doing any work
for people who are living in Cephrus or something like that, growing up as
a mason or whatever he was, then he probably would have picked up some
Greek. But there's a mason or a cult leader utilizing burning purple whatever he
was doing there. There's debate about the degree to which Hebrew was a living
language around the time of Jesus, but I think most scholars would say it
was probably still a living language, although Aramaic and Greek were the more common
languages of wider communication. Now when the septuagen was translated, Hebrew was very
much still a living language. That's probably around two hundred and fifty to one
hundred BCE. You have the process of translating the subtuigen. There's an old
tradition from a text that scholars usually call pseudo Aristaus, about the king in
Egypt winning translations of all the laws of the world, and so he calls
sends some people to Jerusalem, and they bring back seventy two elders, six
from all the twelve tribes of Israel, and they are locked up in towers,
and they each translate the entire Torah into Greek, and they all come
together at the end and miraculously, all seventy two translations match word for word.
And so that's the legend about the translation of the septuag And the reality
is that the books were translated by different people over the course of a few
centuries, and there were some versions that were probably more popular than others,
and by around the turn of the era, so the end of the first
century BCE, beginning of the first entry CEE, around the birth of Jesus,
there was probably a set of kind of more or less standard translations of
the Hebrew Bible into Greek. And one of the reasons that we know that
this is a translation is because, for instance, the Torah, the Pentituke,
the first five books of Moses. Each of the books as a different
translation profile, like some of the books are more literal, some of the
books are less literal. Some have certain habits that they do in translating certain
Hebrew things, others have other habits. And so when you look at all
five of them together, there's no way this is an original composition. It
has to be a translation. And my jograph I don't see that that as
being an argument, really, but a little bit continue the subtuagent septuagen the
ancient Greek translation, when he keeps calling it a translation rather than the original.
We look at the Hebrew there is some there is some distinctiveness from book
to book. But as we kind of drill down to the foundation of this
distinctiveness, what we get is the different source texts, the different sources for
these traditions. So Genesis were probably composed separately from Exodus. Deuteronomy was composed
separately. We have what's called the Priestly Source, which is adding layers to
several of the books of the Pentateuch. The Holiness Code is an even later
portion of the priestly Source that is responsible for things in Leviticus and things like
that. So but there's a there's a consistency that is related to the type
of Hebrew that we see being used outside of the Bible. So in the
inscriptions in the letters the Dead Sea Scrolls, there were a lot of Biblical
texts, but there were a lot of other texts that were discovered there as
well that aren't part of the Bible, part of other apocryphal, pseudopographical books,
but other things that were unique to that community that was living in Kumran,
and there's there's nothing in there. Well, So we have Hebrew,
some Aramaic, and some Greek texts that were discovered among the Dead Sea scrolls,
and there's nothing in the Hebrew of the Dead Sea Scrolls that indicates it's
being translated from Greek. All of the data point in the other direction,
that is going from Hebrew to Greek. And in one of the videos,
I pointed out that, for instance, they need this for their identity.
So there's a very big push for this to be accepted as true because otherwise
the whole entire house of cards for the Old tests a bit falls. You
have these idioms that exist in Hebrew that don't exist in Greek. Not classical
Greek, not the coin you explain what an idiom is. An idiom is
something where like a colloquial metaphor, it doesn't the semantic content of a given
set of words. Isn't the sum of the whole like a butterfly. Well
that's a single word. But a common one you hear these days is you
know, in a thousand years, they won't know the difference between a butt
dial and a booty call, because butt and booty are synonyms, dial call
are kind of synonyms. Doesn't exactly work, but those are those are things
where you combine words in a way that has a specific kind of semantic impact
that you might not be able to decipher just from looking at the words themselves.
And so in the thesis I wrote at Oxford, I was looking at
Exodus twenty four to ten, and this is the story of Moses goes up
Sinai with all of the elders, and it says by yehu et alo jes
kayel, and they saw the God of Israel. And there was the text,
go who would be Yahweh or as the Egyptians viewed him as Set,
And Set wasn't a good dude at all. It was honest say there was
like a sapphire paving under his feet, and they and they sat down and
they ate there. In the Greek it doesn't say that, says they saw
the place where the God of Israel stood. But it's so you're saying there's
way more detail in the Hebrew. Well, no, The point here is
that there's a difference between what the Hebrews say and what the Greeks saying.
But the Greek is not phrased how you would normally phrase that in Greek.
Well, here's the thing, though, when you have less words to use,
you're gonna lose detail. So that's gonna there's gonna be a difference when
you're trying to cram it into Hebrew. So it actually says they saw they
saw the place which God stood there, and so the witch and the there
are an odd way that that's not natural Greek. But it exactly matches something
called the resumptive pronoun that is used in Hebrew, where you would say stood
a share for which a mod he stood sham there. And so what it's
what it shows is that the Greek translator is translating very literally, so much
so that it doesn't make a ton of sense in Greek, but if you
know Hebrew, you could be like, oh I see that's it's doing this
Hebrew thing. And so there's I'm trying to think of of some English examples
of like translation ease or something's well, I guess just saying they saw the
place which he stood there that that doesn't make a lot of sense in English,
but a Hebrew speaker would be able to see, oh, I see
what you're doing. That's something that we do in Hebrew with this resumptive pronoun
and adverb. Yeah. One of the interesting things that Ahmann pointed out to
me when he was trying to make a case for the Greek being original was,
Dude, his mic sounds phenomenal. I love that mic. It's kind
of like mine, except it's the one step up from that. This episode
of the podcast is brought to you by Man. He was showing us the
differences, and there was like, for one word in Greek when you translated
to Hebrew, there's like three or four words just to equal that one word
in Greek. So there's so a couple of things there are. One there's
like with logos, you have to basically spell out a whole entire paragraph in
order to get to somewhat the idea and concept of what logos is. And
it's not word. That's not what that means. Nowhere near that many Greek
words there are ancient Greek. You've got I think two hundred and seventy five
thousand is an estimate more or less of how many ancient Greek that words there
are. If you look at all Greek ancient, medieval, and modern,
you've got four to five hundred thousand. Okay, so he's wrong about that,
but they're going to show that in a second on the screen. But
let me go ahead and read to you from my book, the book called
Logos, a mock epic that I wrote two thousand and two, and it
says logos, a complex Greek word associated with the philosopher Heraclitis. Heracletian logos
is both an account of reality and that which is revealed by the account.
The logos is the fundamental reason for things being as they are. It is
the fundamental principle of the world. And that's Douglas j. Socio quote and
the what's that lexicon website where we can actually look it up. So Fisaurus,
lingue, greika, yeah, okay, TLG. Can you find the
TLG? And and is there a way you can just search for unique words
in a certain language and it'll tell you, Uh, you have to have
an account, I think, to do the most robust kind of search with
that. Oh, so for those of you just want to get to the
answer definitions two hundred and seventy five thousand in the Ancient Greek unique words one
million, seven hundred and fifty thousand, give or take in the ancient Hebrew.
I think it's similar, like eighty four hundred or something. They showed
that part on the screen though at some point do you but I think you
should be able to do some pretty basic stuff. Okay, see what you
can find, Stephen, Okay, and then keep going. And then there
are there are seventy nine nine hundred, like forty five words in Hebrew.
And he was only off by about seventy thousand Hebrew Bible alone, So seventy
nine seventy nine thousand. Yeah, so I think he may have heard it.
So when you hear that, it should automatically tell you that they're using
a more modern Hebrew, not the ancient Hebrew, which would date the Bible
well ahead of where it's supposedly have been written, and only points more to
the fact that if what he says is true about the seventy nine thousand words,
then it was an ancient Hebrew that was being used, so it was
a translation of the Greek. It kind of just flat out says it came
out kind of right there, eighty thousand somewhere he said eight. Yeah,
I think he may have mistook eighty four eight because there knew he did not
or the Hebrew Bible itself, which is not all of ancient Hebrew, Like
there's there was a lot of Hebrew writing. Here we go. So it
says number of distinct words in the Hebrew Bible is eight thousand, six hundred
and seventy nine, of which one thousand, four hundred and eighty are hapax
legomena words or expressions that occur only once writing and speaking outside the Hebrew Bible.
But the Hebrew Bible itself has eighty thousand different words in it. Yeah,
you're only off of by about well seventy thousand, so but when it
comes to translation, they're a lot. And this is a biblical scholar who
should know this. A lot of different ways that between one language and another
one word may need a whole phrase in another language. Yes, but at
the same time, in that language, there may be another word that needs
two or three words in the other language. It's just fact, it's just
wild, Like it's bizarre that even let's even just let's just say what you're
saying is true, and it's it's eighty thousand in Hebrew and it's only two
hundred fifty thousand in Greek. The fact that you need for like multiple Hebrew
words to match one Greek word is like pretty wild. I think more frequently
you need more Greek words Greeks use. Really, that's not at all true.
This is Greek uses articles a lot more frequently, Like don't you don't
just say Jesus and Greek you say the Jesus. Yeah, but the whole
concept thing, right, one word would define an entire concept that requires a
whole explanation. If you're not thinking in Greek terms, if if Greek isn't
your first language, which it was their first language, these concepts wouldn't make
sense to people because you would need those extra words to even conceptualize what is
being said. You would need the Greek, you would need the understanding of
Greek, and it would most likely need to be your first language in order
to really fully grasp the concepts. So if you were just speaking in Hebrew
Aramaic, you would just say yeah, shil or something like that, and
you wouldn't have to use the article you have. And Greek is a much
more systematic language than Hebrew. Hebrew is a lot more vibes going on in
Hebrew. You kind of have to just get a sense for how things are
being used. But also in Hebrew, things get packed together into individual words.
So you can have your direct objects tacked onto the word, you can
have the definite article tacked onto the word. And so if you're looking at
a text, you may only be looking at one word, but it could
be he did the thing. It could be three different words in English.
So I actually tried to figure out what he was talking about with this going
from more complex to less complex. I honestly don't. Yeah, he did
a debate with a guy named Kip Kip Davis. Kip Davis, Yeah,
he did a debate with him. I think it was on Neil's podcast where
they were debating with what came first, the Greek or the Hebrew and this
is the example I was talking about. Okay, I forget what the exact
word was, Stephen, maybe you can find it on Neil's channel, his
kip. He is like, he's a scholar of scrolls. Okay, he's
In fact, he was on a team that helped demonstrate that a bunch of
the Dead Sea scrolls fragments that have been discovered and purchased in the last twenty
years or all forgeries. So he's he's a really good forgeries. So there
were there were a bunch that were discovered with the initial excavations that went on
in all the caves down and Kumran and elsewhere. Right, So since then,
every now and then, a little piece of it, of of something
that somebody calls a Dead Sea scroll will pop up somewhere on the antiquities market
or a school. We'll say, oh, we we just purchased this.
Uh, this was just discovered. And in fact, there were just some
some texts that were discovered just a few months ago in a cave that was
adjacent to some of these others. But there were about eighty of these fragments
that have been purchased since two thousand and two by different institutions. I think
the Museum of the Bible purchased a bunch a ZUSA Pacific University, a handful
of faith institutions purchased them. And one of them that I really thought was
fascinating was a fragment of Deuteronomy twenty seven, which there's a variant reading where
it says that they're supposed to be on Mount Garrazine. And this is what
the Samaritans have always said should be the reading over against the traditional Jewish reading.
And so this shocked a lot of people. It's like, this is
very, very early evidence for the Samaritan reading. And they were given access
to a number of these fragments to do analysis, and they did a bunch
of different types of analysis and came back and said, forgive me, but
I'm gonna I'm gonna skip ahead of this too. Let's see right here,
right there, let's watch. They're gonna watch too. Translating into a dead
and liturgical language when you go to the synagogue, into translating into a dead
and liturgical language. When you go to the synagogue, you see Greek.
Why don't you see why don't you see any Hebrew? You see Greek in
the synagogues. No, theoa is what this guy job has and I want
you to see that this is that saba, that Saba of Zaeus or the
good keep going Neil, right very now, how does this translated? Right
on the mass of rex side. You just use an adjective for being afraid
and you drop in eloheim. Look, THEO sabeya is taken by the Hebrew
back translator and done literally. They have no internal concept of THEO sabba or
sabe. All right, so what is he saying there? Do you understand
what's Yeah, THEO is god fearing. It was a title that was used
you do see synagogue inscriptions where somebody and and god fearer was a title that
was used in the Hellenistic Jewish world to refer to somebody who was a Greek
or Roman, was not Jewish but supported the Jewish community. So it was
like he's a friend of the Jews, he's a god fearer, and so
you have like a funeral in so we want to be fearful of our God
who's also jealous. Inscriptions or on somebody's headstone that says this is Dave god
fearer. So that was that just meant he was a friend. This is
Dave god Fear. Yeah, what a great what a great way to sum
up someone's life. Friend of the Jewish people. Yeah, or you I
might say this synagogue was thanks to the help of so and so Thiocedes God
Fears. So that's a title that developed within Hellenistic Judaism, as it's interacting
with the Greco Roman world. So it's not unusual that there would be a
title that is unique to Greek because that title developed from the interaction of Jewish
and Greco Roman individuals. The notion that this Hebrew didn't pre exist that title,
that this is a translation from that title is nonsensical. So and then
he's also mentioning here that the synagogues, the synagogues they had astrology or zodiacs.
They had a Greek astrology on the ceilings and stuff like that. So
they had mosaics that would have Greek astrological Yeah, the zodiacs, yes,
yeah, so most of those are from second century CE and later. Dura
Europus is the most famous one. But yeah, there's and this is again
the interaction of Jewish communities with the Hellenized world. They're living in a world
where everybody around them is speaking Greek, and so there are you have a
whole spectrum of people from the folks who went ran off into the desert at
Kuman, and these are the hippies that went out in the desert to live
by themselves. We're sick of the man. We're going to go be by
ourselves. And then you had like the Maccabees and others who fought against the
Seleucid tyrants, like Antiochus, the Fourth Epiphanies, and these are the folks
who want to defend their culture. They're not about to go out into the
desert, but they're also not going to adopt the Greco Roman worldview. And
then you have other folks, and this is primarily the elites, the people
who are well off who you know, the Greek tax well, I'm sorry,
the Jews who are tax collectors in Alexandria. Right, they didn't they
didn't have it too much of a problem with the with the whole system because
they're making it killing. There's a lot of social capital associated with integrating with
the broader Hellenistic world who are fine with it. And what we find in
what has been preserved in you know, what we call the Jewish scriptures is
mostly the production of the people on the more conservative end of that spectrum.
So the folks who are very insular running off into the desert to hide from
the Romans, and the people who are fighting against the Romans. Christianity is
kind of the folks who are a little closer to the assimilationists, the the
people who are accommodating to the Hellenistic world, accommodating they're in their world,
man, Like, what do you mean by accommodating. It's it's not there,
it's not their place. They're they're the outsiders. It's it's it's silly
how they say that. But anyway, that's let's get up to this part.
We're going to get into some molar of the translations. Here again you
can find this. It's called Biblical Sculleries Bonds, Sam and Hillman was Jesus
Christ the trafficker Dan McLellan, and it's on the Danny Jones podcast. I
think it might be the most recent one. Still if you go to the
videos, a tad language. We're not dressing like them. So there's there's
a there's a whole spectrum of distinction versus accommodation going on with people who are
consuming and using the scriptures, the Jewish scriptures, whether the Hebrew Bible or
the well what ultimately become the New Testament. Okay, so the point he's
making here is, Steve, can you just play like the next like ten
seconds of it to see what if we get to the Greek go ahead,
one who feared God. You're saying, it's it would it would be really
hard to go the other way around to translate those two words into theo sibeyo.
Right, it would be impossible, Neil, because he's so he's saying,
it would be impossible to translate eloheme and we ray into theosibea. Is
that what he's saying seems to be what he's saying, which is nonsensical because
there's because translation is not just a a surgical, technical reproduction of the same
words in another language. It is just as much in art. There's there's
a whole range of ways to translate something, and particularly when it comes to
things that are considered authoritative or or even inspired. And so you have a
word like theosibea, which means is to one who fears God. So it's
it's that's one word in Greek. Right, And then so if I say
it's a compound word though, because it's theos and the verb for fear,
so there's two of them being Yeah. But that's how Greek works. That's
why there's so many different words, because that's how it's built, and that's
what makes us such an interesting and very useful language. That's why you can
create one and fifty words with it, depending on what you're trying to conceptualize.
Right, So that's not really an argument, that's just a statement of
how Greek works, but acting like it's somehow different or unique, because it's
no, that's just how that language operates together. In one word, it's
a compower. Okay, so it's kind of like booty call. Well we
that would be two words are a hyphenated word, but football football, there
we go. Okay, got it, thanks Steve. Okay, So this
is like that we're taking a word like football and we're translating it. And
basically, so you're saying, they're separating it and they're taking each part the
person who's doing the fearing and the entity God, and they're separating those into
Hebrew, and he's Ammond's point is that it's impossible to do this. I
worked in scripture translation for ten years. That's laughable. The notion that that
would be impot possible is just not because you already know what the outcome is
that you want, so therefore you already have a confirmation bias going into it.
So you're going to make it fit and you're going to rationalize how it
fits on sensical's that has absolutely no basis in any kind of valid translation theory
that exists. There is a presupposition in the translation of the Bible that anything
that is said in one trend in a given language can be translated into another.
And I think there's a degree to which that's accurate. But at the
same time, there's so much nuance and so many layers of meaning that can
be added by the nonverbals. This sounds like word solid to me, by
emphasis, by context, by all this kind of stuff that you can't really
communicate in writing. So there are ways to say. You could have a
text and a translation, and you could say this is an accurate translation because
these words means this, and these words mean this, And then you could
say this is an inaccurate translation because there's also this thing going on here,
but you have to be on the inside. You have to get the joke,
and the translation doesn't communicate that. In Bible translation, you're trying to
strike a balance because what you're doing is you're taking something that is a product
of a specific time and place, and this doesn't even go into what the
Bible really translates out to be. So this is again another showing of how
the Hebrew failed to express the things that we then took as biblical and lost
a whole lot of the defining words that tell you a whole different tale.
You're trying to render it understandable to a different time and place and language,
and there are a bunch of ways that you can Your translation is going to
fall somewhere between those two, and you can make it a lot closer to
the original, like if you use the same word order, or you use
you ensure that the same number of words are being used, or something like
that, and that makes it closer to the original. But then the reader
has to do a lot more work to understand it. They have to get
themselves closer to the original time and place in order to understand what's going on.
So they're just straight up telling you that they're dumbing it down when they
translate it so that the people of that period of time will understand it more.
That completely takes away the meaning of the original. And so like an
interlinear, people think they understand the Bible better if they look at an interlinear
or something like that, and that's not how language works. It becomes harder
to understand. The other thing that you can do is you can accommodate the
language to the target audience. You can move the translation closer to the understanding
the conventions, the history of whoever's going to be reading it. See,
there you go, that's what they're saying. They do so they augment the
original intent, and that makes it easier to understand, but it also moves
it away from the meaning that it had in that original context. Yeah,
and so the example of butt dial and booty call again in a thousand years,
if for whatever reason they lost all knowledge of this, both of those
are going to feel pretty similar because they don't they're not close enough to the
source culture to be able to understand what those words meant. Yeah, and
here we are two thousand years, more than two thousand years away, trying
to figure out what was going on back then. That's the hardest part about
this whole thing is trying to figure out the context of what the hell was
going on back then. Yeah, that's where the meaning is found, is
in reproducing the history, the literary context why somebody was writing and so.
And an example, I use a lot a lot of people like the King
James version of the Bible. I think it's it's a great literary artifact,
but it is an awful translation of the Bible. And it's an awful translation,
yea, for a number of different reasons, because they were using inferior
manuscripts, because they were frequently being overly literal, and so they weren't they
if they didn't have a clear understanding of what something meant in the source,
they would frequently just render it literally, translated as literal as they could follow
the same word order and everything like that. And sometimes it's just nonsensical,
like there's we have passages in the King James version that are semantically meaningless because
they were they just punted. They were like, no, just just render
it literally. And but an example of why it's also outdated, nobody speaks
the language in fact, when they when they published the King James version.
Nobody spoke the language of the King James version because it is a very conservative
revision of the Bishop's Bible, which was a very conservative revision of earlier translation
and earlier translations back to Tyndall's New Testament in this pentitoc and then Coverdale's translation
of the rest of the Old Testament from almost a century before, and so
the language is almost a century out of date on the date it was published,
and now it's more than four hundred years further out of date. But
a good example is the Epistle of Jude in the New Testament, verse twenty
two. It says, of some have compassion making a difference. And I've
seen sermons preached on this where people say, have compassion on people. It
makes a difference in their lives, It has a positive impact, it has
a positive influence. That's how we interpret making a difference has absolutely nothing at
all to do with what the King James translators were trying to say, because
in sixteen eleven, making a difference didn't mean have a positive impact or influence.
It meant to distinguish one thing from another. So what they were trying
to say was of some have compassion, but be discerning, but exercise discernment
regarding and that phrase making a difference didn't start to mean having a positive influence
or impact until around the year nineteen hundred. So our experience of the language
of the King James version is different from the experiences of the translators. So
then there are a bunch of different ways that we misunderstand the King James version.
But even that's an example of how we can be far enough away from
the source culture that we don't even need a translation the same language that we
are speaking. We're too far away from the source culture to understand it.
So when you're talking about a translation from one language to another, it's so
funny that we can be so far in the future and still be arguing about
what the hell they're talking about. It's kind of goofy. Yeah, well,
and it's unfortunate because you know, it still means life or death for
some people what the Bible says. I know, if people think it's yeah,
that's that's an interesting point you make. It's it's perplexing to me how
people can be a scholar of the Bible and dedicate their lives. I mean,
to go to school and to get a master's degree in studying the Bible.
It's a it's a science. You're trying to figure out the truth about
something. And it seems to me so counterintuitive that you have all these people
who are Bible scholars, but they're also subscribing to the very belief of the
thing that they're studying. That is one of the things that causes me an
awful lot of being too close to the material to be objective. That's a
good point, right. Heartache is the fact that there are folks who ostensibly
want to understand this as it was understood anciently, but conveniently it always seems
to line up with what they want it to mean today. And I think
that's to there's a degree to which that's inevitable. Because we don't have the
authors here with us today, we can't drill them for understanding. We can't
say what did you mean by this? Did you mean this, or did
you mean that? We can only try to reconstruct their perspectives and what we
think they meant. And for a text that is authoritative, you know,
this happens with the Constitution and other things as well. For the texts that
are authoritative or thought to be inspired or anything like that, just intuitively,
not even on purpose. Just the way the human mind interprets language, we're
going to be nudged in the direction of an interpretation that serves our interests or
makes sense to us. And for a text like the Bible, which there's
so much power and authority and values wrapped up in it, I think it's
just so incumbent on people who do make it their life's work to study the
Bible, to distinguish what I want the Bible to mean from what I think,
you know, what they originally wanted it to mean. Because if it
just conveniently always happens to be the exact same thing, there's a problem in
your Your math is wrong. It's because they lived in an entirely different world
anciently. They don't magically hate all the same people and magically love all the
same people and magically need all the same things. All right, moving up
a little bit here, there's a commercial through that, So I'm just going
to go ahead and dance. Personal bias isn't all that important. Let's go
to Toro origins right now. Going back real quick to the subtuogen, is
there any evidence that we can date the Torah. Let's say say the Tora
was first, the Subtuogen came after. Is there any evidence that places the
creation of the tour in the Hellenistic era? There have been some theories about
that, But it's not the composition of the Torah. It is the consolidation
of all these traditions and texts together and their arrangements that so with he's saying
there is that he's admitting that it's possible that it was all put together during
the Hellenistic period. But what he say for the Torah meaning it's in Hebrew
right, but that it was already pre existing for a very very long time
and they were just assembling it. It just happened to be that they were
assembling during the same time. It appears that they were borrowing all these ideas
and concepts from the Greek mythology, in the Greek legends that seems a little
suspicious. Almost certainly took place in the Hellenistic era. So, for instance,
like the Book of Genesis has some of the oldest poetry and all the
Hebrew Bible may go back to a thousand BC. Like Genesis forty nine,
it also has can you show us where that comes from. Can you show
us something from one thousand BC that you can pull up and say, hey,
here it is some traditions that are post exilic that come from around maybe
the late sixth or the fifth century BCE. See, they use the Bible's
statements to date the Bible's origins. So if somebody backdates something to gain legitimacy
for their claims, then they just say, well no, because look they're
saying that it came from there. So you're using the same book to validate
and verify the book. That's that's circular argument, right. It probably did
not take the shape that we know it now more or less until probably around
three or two hundred BCE. So these to me, that's an open admission
right there. X And these traditions all have very very long lives. But
I think that the actual arrangement of the Five Books of the Pentateuch in the
way we have it now, that probably did take place during the Hellenistic era.
However, the stories in them, and many of them in the ect
actual textual form in which we now have them, probably existed for several years
prior to that. Yeah, I watched the video with the guy God Burnea,
God God, Burnia. And he says that he insists that the Torah
was at three hundred BC or later for yeah, and usually these scholars were
talking about when it all came together in the shape that we have it now,
which is close to the Septuagen. Yes, yeah, relatively close.
Yeah, within within a century, within a century. Yeah. And so
while we have in addition to that a just claims that there's older texts and
that they're pulling from something that actually was written or conceived of back when Moses
allegedly was walking the earth. Otherwise, the agreement is, yeah, that
was put together during the Hellenistic period in the same time the septuagen was.
So what does that tell you? And at the same time, you know,
when we look at the septuagen, the Septuagint translation of Jeremiah is one
sixth shorter than the Hebrew version, and so what who did that math?
And also, yeah, the complexity of words in Greek would allow for that,
Right, you can get sexualized things a whole lot quicker when you have
words that you can build on. A lot of scholars think happened there is
that the version of Jeremiah as it existed when it was translated into Greek was
much shorter, and that it was expanded scribally in the centuries after. So
there's probably a lot of stuff going on right or in between three hundred and
one hundred BCE. There's probably an awful lot of stuff going on, and
it's an incredibly complex thing to try to unpack and parse apart, but in
general we in kind of broad strokes, we can talk about yellow journalism and
revisionist history. That's what was going on during that period, the main sources
being the Deuteronomous source, the priestly source, and then the others we call
non p of the Pentateuch. Probably the Deuteronomists probably started under King Josiah the
end of the eighth century or excuse me, seventh century BCE show us that's
when the earliest layers of Deuteronomy probably started getting written down. But Deuteronomy in
the shape that we have it now probably is around three hundred two hundred PCE,
so there's there's over three hundred to maybe four So here's the thing too.
If it was seven hundred BC, Moses was to have lived way before
that, so nothing was written down about Deuteronomy until then, so how do
how do we know that that's an accurate portrayal of what was going on four
hundred years of developed Apparently one hundred and two hundred years is enough cultural differences
for things that mean different things and to have a different application. So why
would we expect something that happened in sixteen hundred BC, give or take,
to be accurately written down and even if it was truly done in eight hundred
or seven hundred BC element of that text. Here's another thing I don't understand.
Yeah, Moses. So the first time, the first time Moses has
written about is Hectaeus of Abdera outside the Bible. Yeah that was talking about
Yeah, yeah, Hecataus. This was like three hundred and twenty B outside
of the Bible. But we haven't gotten into a specific date of when that
Bible was originally put together, right, So Hellenistic period once again goes right
back to it outside of the Bible, meaning somehow a Bible is the authority.
It's timeless, there's no no date you need to worry your minds about.
But yeah, Hectus of Abdera was the first person to talk about Moses,
and I bet you Hectaus may possibly be hebre I don't know, it
may possibly be a Jew. We should look that up, you see,
or something the three D. Yeah, yeah, So how come we have
the We don't have any mention of Moses between when he supposedly existed twelve hundred
BC up until three hundred BC. So uh, most scholars would say the
Moses tradition probably started being written down in the seven hundreds. They would say
that do they have paperwork to show that, and do they have do they
even have any idea like what really was going on in twelve hundred BC.
If it wasn't written down until seven hundred BC, that's a pretty big expanse
of time, five hundred years of nobody saying anything about it. Nothing.
What does that mean? Maybe the late eight hundreds BCE, but probably in
the seven hundreds BCE and up until we get to the Greco Roman period.
There's not a lot of interaction between these cultures. So the classical authors who
are away in Greece, they're not really interacting with what's going on in Jerusalem.
They may know about it. There are some travelogues people who are traveling
through and taking note of some general traditions. But yeah, I don't think
it's a huge surprise that we don't hear about Moses until the Hellenistic period.
So hektaese abderaz three hundred. You're saying, there's someone else who wrote about
it in seven hundred, not somebody outside the Bible. I'm saying the but
you haven't dated sufficiently to anybody's satisfaction when that Bible was allegedly written originally,
And so far all we can come up with this three hundred BC during the
Hellenistic period under the occupation of the Greeks. The account in the Book of
Exodus probably comes from the seven hundreds originally, not as we have it now,
but don't you love Probably probably's work, but the Moses tradition probably originates
in the seven hundreds. So you're saying, Okay, you're saying the account
in the Bible refer to the seventh century BC. I think it's kind of
like this, if your grandfather was had some kind of cool war story or
something like that, and it doesn't get written down until one hundred years after
he dies, and then but that would bring that to eleven hundred BC,
and nobody did that according to him. Hundreds of years later, people are
starting up. There you go, Danny, exactly. I wouldn't believe it.
Publish it. Yeah, it's kind of like that. But the data
don't support the historicity of Moses or the Exodus. So the data don't support
the historicity of Moses or the Exodus, at least how it is told in
the Exodus. In other words, there is not good evidence that there was
a historical Moses, that Moses existed. Hey, there you go. Good,
good job, Dan McClellan. Good, I'm glad you said that.
Most likely, this is a tradition that got started up and over time accreted
more and more details and got altered and got changed and got added to.
And there are a bunch of different theories about how this happened. Some folks
think that one theory is that there was a band of levitical priests who were
enslaved in Egypt, and they escaped and made their way to the northern hill
country, and that their story of escape grew to you know, millions of
people, and we trudged along in the desert for forty years. Another theory
is that it was just a small group of people who were already in the
northern hill country of Israel, who escaped enslavement and told their story. And
over the centuries the fish got bigger and bigger and bigger. Or it was
the origins of victimhood that they would utilize to garner sympathy and subdue minds for
AONs and we have, you know what we have now in the story of
the Exodus. But the way it's the way the story is told, the
language that is used. Most scholars would say this seems to be something that
developed between the eighth century and probably the fourth century. But and another important
point is that when a lot of these stories were being written, they're being
used as scribal exercises. So it's they're being used to train scribes to write,
train scribes to lie, so they're you know, not everybody has a
copy of Exodus in their living room. If you go to if you get
special training to be a scribe, you will have read this because it will
be something that you had to write out. They're also being used the elites
or using these texts to kind of structure power. There's competition between the palace
and the temple, and they're writing different kinds of texts to try to show
that they're the ones who should be in charge. And then, particularly after
the exile, there's a lot going on with groups who want to return to
Israel and want the land to be pure. And so we wouldn't expect to
see people from speaking another language in another nation being aware of these texts because
they didn't publish them. There was no New York Times Number one bestseller list
that they looked at. These were texts that were kind of internally circulating until
we get into the Hellenistic period when they're probably more widely known. And there's
a there's a book called The Origins of Judaism by Jonatan Adler that was recently
published that argues that we don't see widespread knowledge within the people of Judea of
the laws of the Torah and their enforcement until the middle of the second century
BCE. So will isn't that interesting like one sixties is when you start to
see widespread avoidance of pork, when you start to see certain kind of purity
practices suddenly start being practiced. And so the argument there is that the text
that we now know is the Pentituk is the Torah were not used by the
whole nation they were just they were the describal exercises. They were pastored.
So the explanation as to why it wasn't widespread is because it wasn't circulated,
not because it didn't exist. That's that's the whole argument. It's just because
people didn't know about it. But it was all right there, just needed
to be distributed around the elite. They were used to try to structure power.
And then when we had this war the Maccabees and the Seleucids and we
have the establishment of the Hasminian dynasty. So for a brief time period after
the Hellenistic period, there was actually an independent, quasi independent kingdom of Judea.
And it was at that time period that the people who were in charge
of that kingdom probably said, all right, everybody needs to follow these rules
now, because we're a people again, we're our own nation, and this
is how we're going to identify ourselves. These are the identity markers that are
going to distinguish us from the people we just fought off. And so that's
a theory about the rise of all the practices that we now associate with Judaism.
Yes, okay, that makes sense. Okay, let's watch the second
video you did. The second video you did was about the Christ, right,
what's the what's the root of christ? Ing? The word again creole?
Creole? There's also the christing was when they were putting the stuff in
the eyes. There we go, Yeah, we'll just watch it. What
is the Christ? What is the Antichrist? What is the Christ? If
you have to know them anti Christ, you have to know the Christ?
Right, all right, let's see it. It's a Greek word for for
applying a drug into your eyes, So maybe open that's what the Christ means
in Greek. Yes, the incredulity on the face of this podcast host is
warranted because that is pure and utter nonsense from the verb rio to be stung
by the gap slides. So, as with many words in many languages,
the verbal root creole in ancient Greek can mean more than one thing. Overwhelmingly,
it refers to rubbing with some kind of sticky fluid of some kind,
either rubbing into the eyes, how's that different, debathing, or for some
kind of ritual purpose or something like that. So, in the context to
anoint, be anointed, anointing something like that is going to take up the
majority of the real estate for the occurrences of this verbal root. However,
it can refer to the sting of a gadfly, but that is overwhelmed.
So he just up and says that he wasn't wrong and in the context,
and what he what Ammon reads is all the parmacological all the all the drug
literature from Greece, from the Greek time period, where nobody's reading this stuff,
thousands upon thousands of pages, so he understands how it's used in the
context, whelmingly in the minority of occurrences of this verb, and it's limit
to classical and later Greek lyrical poetry, none of which that's based on your
exposure to all of the writings that the Greeks left behind, and you're not
You had a minor in Greek, so you're not seeing it all has anything
whatsoever to do with early Jewish or early Christian literature, not the septuagen not
the New Testament, not the early literature. Okay, so he did correct
me on something there. I said it was limited to classical and early Greek
lyrical poetry, but it's also in classical and early Greek medical texts, and
he pointed out out, so, oh, Yeah. Now that has absolutely
no bearing whatsoever on the claim that that's what it means in the New Testament.
But because apparently words means something different when you put him in a Bible
and you call it a Bible, all of a sudden, it can't possibly
mean what it always means, because they wouldn't say that in the Bible.
Okay, it is in medical texts, Okay. So he so, is
it true that the word trio means to apply drugs to the eyes of the
skin. So it can if it can if the context indicates that that's how
it's being used, Okay. Because so the way Ahman described it to me,
he said, what classicists do is they take the meanings of words and
they figure out what part on the human timeline where in history the context fits,
where they fit into the where they come from, and what was going
on at that time in history, to figure out what it meant. Then
to figure out because there's like the semantic drift over time. So we're gonna
go ahead and we're gonna go back in the time machine to one hundred BC,
and during that time he's saying the word cRIO meant overwhelmingly to apply drugs
to the skin. Yeah, that's that's just not true. Like there are
you can isolate certain texts where they're using it in that context to indicate that.
Okay, but if you just if you just gather all the occurrences of
the word for a given time period, the majority are just going to be
more generic about how do you know that you're not interpreting those portions of what
you're looking at incorrectly and that it is consistently meaning the same thing, but
you're just not looking at it like that rubbing with something. Either you just
got out of the bath and you rubbed some oil on you so you smelled
good, or somebody you know, just who knows one won a contest and
so they get a little smudge of something, or Simba is born and you
go on his forehead, like all of those things could be called this anointing.
There was another Disney reference. I just want to point that out and
with and but you have to look at each individual occurrence in its context,
because the context is what determines the sense. Yes, and so what and
Aman did a whole too something our live stream responding to me arguing that I
was wrong about all this, but all he ever did was show the non
Christian and non Jewish texts. So you can't say, look at all these
texts over did you catch that? So the words have different definitions If it's
in a Christian text using ancient Greek, that doesn't make any sense. You
put a label on something and call it a Bible, and all of a
sudden words mean something else over here. They are using this word to mean
this. But I don't think he's I don't think he's saying when he said
in the podcast, he didn't say it was in the Bible. He just
said it was a Greek word. Well, he's trying to define what the
Christ is. And his theory is that he's saying that the term Christ means
this. Yeah, why would you use it? Why would you use that
word if that's not what it? You know what I mean mean? Like,
why would they pick it? Not? Why would they not pick a
different word than Christ? Then if Christ already has been defined as rubbing something
in your eyes, then right, the anointed one Christ? Right Cristos?
Right? Well you you asked about it, he said, what is the
Christ? You said, what is the Antichrist? And said, if you
Christ and Antichrist as we use those words today are biblical terms. Their biblical
terms, right, But what I get what his point is, But that
would be the dote and the antidote, by the way, is the the
in the sources and the original sources when the people around that world we're talking
about and we're writing about this kind of stuff. He's what he's saying is
outside of the biblical context, Christ meant drugs, and anti Christ meant antidotes
to drugs like venom and and and and anti venoms. They could be used
that way. Sure, what is this? Is this? What would this
help? This is a Yeah, that's the word. Yes, Yeah,
that's that's a Greek word christ right here in the So this is a christ
doesn't a definition? It's is that the property? Is that the So are
you saying this is is that the word we're talking about? Christos right there?
Yeah, Christos is a title. This is the This is the Greek,
actual Greek letter up here, and this is the English translation. Okay,
so it says to be rubbed on, used as ointment. Now you
don't have you have you occasionally have occurrences of this of this form of of
the word in classical Greek. But but uh, this was not this was
not a salient title. So staring directly at the answer, he still has
something to you argue, Like if you were just in a if you just
had some random Greek text and they just referred to the Christos the Christ,
no one would would know what on earth you're talking about unless something in the
context were to indicate as a title. Christ and Antichrist are overwhelmingly for us
today and in the ancient world, are going to evoke Christianity. And because
of that's how we've been conditioned for the last two thousand years, not because
that's what the words undentitally meant. So again you're arguing through the programming that
no one is going to ever recognize this word as that. Well, yeah,
because good job, you guys fooled everybody for a long time, and
it's been conditioned into us to trigger that response within us. But that doesn't
mean that that's accurate. In the New Testament, where the words are used
very differently, they're never used to refer to. It's not that they're used
differently, it's that we're perceiving it differently. And because years and years and
years of people preaching to us and telling us what things mean. And this
was something that I pointed out that but this was before Christianity. Oh yeah,
yeah, this was before christian right, So it's but it is,
there's a the way it was used in the centuries prior to the development of
the New Testament don't necessarily govern how they're allowed to use it in the New
Testament. So we can change the meanings of words, especially when it makes
more sense when we're trying to sell you a concept of our religion. Got
it. Thanks. My whole point was that if you're talking about Jesus in
the New Testament, if you're talking about the translation of this word in the
septuagen because this occurs in the septuagen like Cyrus the Great is called my Christ
in the Greek translation of Isaiah forty five to one, the anointed one,
and that is a translation of the Hebrew word mischiach, which is a pre
existence that also long predates Christianity, that is used to refer to people who
are anointed for certain purposes they're consecrate, whether they are prophets, priests,
or kings. So because that's how the Hebrews retranslated the Greek, but the
Greek was cristos, and that means rubbing in the eyes, the rubbing of
something, anointment or a drug. Oh, you know, Samuel anoints Saul
and David to be king. So in that sense there which could specifically mean
that they were put through a ritual so that they would have the death and
rebirth and then they would be eligible to be kings because they went through the
ritual, they went through the ceremony, Anointed because they're given special authority or
prophets could be anointed, and Jesus is the anointed one because this tradition developed
that primarily in the Greco Roman period. And we can also say that Christ
being the anointed one would mean that they were giving him like they were conditioning
these other children in the past to be given this this dote, this drug,
this venom into little slits in their skin over time, so that they
would develop the antidote and they would be the antidote. So that would be
another way to look at that that there were there was going to be some
special figure who had special authority, who was going to be kind of a
mediator between God and humanity, who is going to be going to be known
in some circles as the anointed one. Now there were a bunch of other
titles as well, and when the Jesus tradition starts, so he was the
antidote, get it, he was the anointed one to arise. He kind
of consolidates all these different titles. But the one that takes over and at
least in the New Testament is Christ. So how come when we type in
this word here, it only pulls up this to be rubbed on and use
his ointment because this is the moment. This is the generic sense. But
then in different contexts it can have more specific reference. Does anyone else by
this? So yeah, like you could you could use the word anoint today.
You know if somebody, uh, if you hit somebody with with something
that was wet and you know, knocked him out and they and they got
all their face wet, you could say you anointed him, just to be
funny. Like. So the word has this kind of generic sense, but
in that context there's all that additional semantic content that's associated with it with with
the generic sense, and this gets into some complexities of how of how language
works. But now his in his book The Chemical Muse, he makes the
case that during this time, that during this classical period, this classical era,
that life was was absolutely brutal and terrible. People were not dying from
heart disease, people were not dying from old age. People were dying from
hand to hand combat, plague and famine. And he was he's making the
case that that medicine and drug rugs, which weren't distinguished, there wasn't really
a difference, were ubiquitous everywhere. People needed them just to heal from wounds,
from battle, from everything, to get through the day basically. And
he was saying it wasn't drugs as we look at it as we as we
look at drugs today. Right, we have the War on drugs, We
have this schedule system of scheduling drugs on depending on how bad they are,
what the crime is going to be, or how much jail time you're going
to get. That that did not exist. It was just it was just
they were viewed as medicines and ways for these people to get through life and
to make life more bearable. So he's saying that because he's I think he's
he's connecting the dots here. I think I think he's kind of using that
that was what his dissertation was about and he's taking the meetings like you look
up the word for Christ, then it means to apply an Nomenly he's connecting
the dots there with drugs. And he also showed a passage from what was
it you? I say, I saved it, Emil, But there's a
passage you showed me. This is it? Why do famous Greek authors like
okay? Okay? Yeah? This was an example, right, So this
was from what this was from line five one six of Euripides of Hippo Apolitics.
The Greek is very simple. So what that's a sentence in Greek and
he's saying translated, it means what kind of drug is it? Is it
a christ or a potable? Meaning to potable means to drink it. Yeah,
so it's is it topical or is it or is it something you consume?
Right? So this is anyways, my point, like this is,
this is his point of view. You can see where he's coming from.
And I don't I don't disagree with with the fact that they were using whatever
they could find to get by. You know, dotera is around today because
people want to use whatever they can find to to try to cure what ails
them, so, but to use that as an interpretive lens to try to
entirely renegotiate what what Christianity was, what g But the thing he doesn't catch
here is that this was prior to definitely prior to the New Testament. So
these words had their definitions already. It wasn't because after the fact they decided
that this word's now going to mean the Christ, meaning that a person who's
going to save you. That's the same thing as santon anadote in a sense,
as an idiom right. But it's also has its own definition already.
So he's arguing forward to explain something that happened prior arguing forward. It's kind
of frustrating to think to listen to this because it's all about what people perceive
to mean, not what it actually means. And that's what his argument is.
No, no one would ever think that when they're talking about when they're
reading the book, that we've been told supposed to mean a certain thing.
Well that's the whole point. The whole point is we're told that it's supposed
to mean a certain thing. When you come to find out that it means
something completely different, you have to reevaluate what the hell it is that they're
saying, and he's like, no, no, that's not true. It's
because it's not how Christianity is supposed to be seen as. So therefore these
words have to have different meanings. And remember this guy was a graduate of
Brigham Young University. So he states in the very beginning that he's Mormon,
which isn't even more out there. And they have their own SRA issues and
they they protect people who are, you know, guilty of Satanic ritual abuse
and awful lot and that in that church as well. Jesus was within early
Christianity, is like at least be able to use evidence from those texts because
Euripides have to do that. Don't. Don't. Don't argue the Bible from
outside of the Bible. Don't because that's the authority, apparently because we said
so, because we wrapped a bunch of stuff together and put a cover on
it and called it the Bible. Therefore it's impenetrable because we said so.
And therefore you're not allowed to argue anything that's not in the Bible against the
Bible, even if it's words, and words have meanings, and meanings are
important doesn't matter if it's what we tell If you we tell you to read
this book a certain way, and that this is what it means, you
have to use that in order to argue against it. What what are you
saying has no bearing whatsoever on how the author of the Gospel of Mark or
how Paul we're using the term Christ. If you go, every biblical scholar
sounds the same after a while, and it's always the same circular argument.
Look in their text. They're not using it in a way that's that is
amenable to these other medical texts, Like just the genre of text is different.
It's not a medical text. Let me ask you something, if you
know what the definition of the word is, if you write medical text over
the top of it, or if you write reodly just work over the top
of it, or if you write journal entry over the top of it,
does that make the definition that we're different when you're using it in your writing.
No, it doesn't. In case you're wondering, So you have kind
of Greco Roman bios is part of what the Gospels are doing. And you've
got a bunch of epistolary stuff, a lot of paranetic stuff, a lot
of tangents being talked about. All right, so we're going to pick this
up again tomorrow. We're at one hour, eight minutes and eighteen seconds into
a two hour talk, so we'll be able to finish this up tomorrow.
And if you want to see more of it without the commentary by me,
you can go to the Danny Jones podcast on YouTube. There's eight hundred and
fifty seven thousand people are, give or take, that have found it already,
so good for them. Must be nice, Must be nice. I
get kicked off every time I go on YouTube or shut down, so I
can't get back into the account to add more content. That happened to three
different channels. I probably have a little bit more subscriber account if I wasn't
for all the times I had a restart and I was kicked off of Twitter
for two years and had to come in incognito in order to get back on
anyway, So everybody, that is the show for today. I'm just going
to do my thing here. If you are on Speak Free Radio, thank
you for listening and thank you for the support. I appreciate it. For
those of you who are not aware, on Speak Free Video and money Tree
Publishing dot com, you can use well, on money tree Publishing dot com,
you can use code B A A L to get a discount at the
store on money tree publishing dot com, where you'll find books, many different
books, and DVDs and Blu Ray discs. You'll find Europa. There,
you'll find a bunch of other stuff. We're going to actually go back into
that material again after I go through this, probably starting well today's Friday,
so probably starting Tuesday, after we finished this off, we'll go into maybe
the AI generated what do you call it, translations of Hitler's speeches. I'll
try to work that into it, but for now we'll finish up by the
biblical thing. But the point is money Tree Publishing dot Com B A A
L for a discount, and then you can also support your favorite hosts on
Speak Free Radio on the Speak Free Radio site, and all is appreciated.
We don't get a paycheck from the man. We don't get a paycheck from
the evil man because we're saying things that contradict what they're trying to feed us.
So therefore we are always at your debt and gratitude because that is what
makes this thing keep going. Gibcent go dot com backslash Ballbusters if you want
to support there, Patreon dot com get more people every day and that you'll
find commercial, free podcast versions and exclusive content. And if you're on the
second tier, you'll be able to listen to the talks that I have with
Niche from the Cosmic Salon. Second tier is only ten bucks a month.
First tier is five, all right, and then you can also go hit
up the book. In the description of my videos, you'll find the and
if you're on Speak for Radio, there's a little like description area where you
can find links to my book. You can get it from Amazon, you
can get it from other places as well, and you can also get it
for me directly if you want to, you know, roll the dice and
wait a little bit for me to get them so I can sign them and
send them back out. All right. There's hot sauce there, there's creating,
there's all kinds of stuff on simper frillc dot com. All that helps
to support because that's what I do for a living. So that's that's how
it gets the bills paid for the family. Their bills are not there that
small leave it at that, Okay, so thank you so much. My
daughter's birthday is in four days. She's gonna be eight years old. It's
pretty awesome. You guys have a wonderful day.