Why does Genesis have 2 different creation accounts?

#maklelan2538

[@dmnemaine]

When biblical authors disagree, apologists try to pretend that they don't.

[@larrywestra9305]

Only in English. Originally not in disagreement.

[@matthewnitz8367]

​@@larrywestra9305The "original" Hebrew (or as original as we can construct given the lack of original manuscripts and demonstrable redaction and change process the texts went through) is where it is more obvious there is disagreement. Translations to English are often done in a way that masks the disagreements in the original text.

[@dmnemaine]

@ Thank you for illustrating my point so beautifully.

[@nilssturman5258]

@@matthewnitz8367 Indeed. Sometimes, it's accidental. In some cases however, it's intentional... and that is a far bigger problem.

[@philsphan4414]

@@larrywestra9305 No of course they disagree in the original. The interesting question is why the original redactors left that in. Why didn’t they harmonize the stories? TV preachers do it today. My guess is they thought both stories were important and they wanted to preserve both. The modern idea of history was foreign to those redactors. The idea of one story putting humanity man at the summit of creation and a second story showing creation as made for humanity to shepherd made perfect sense to them.

[@TheParadoxDestroyer]

God adjusted your camera to add emphasis! Now, I am a believer.

[@johndemeritt3460]

My wife and I just finished our laundry for the week, so this was timely: because God separated the lights from the darks, just like His wife told Him to! We own a copy of Plaut, et al, _The Torah: A Modern Commentary_ which reflects the consensus you spoke of. And thanks for mentioning Rashi!

[@JabbawockySupafly]

As a nonbeliever who found you via Apocrypals, just wanted to say thank you for your insights and your consistent defense of those who need it most in these trying times.

[@annaclarafenyo8185]

This guy doesn't know Hebrew. He confuses "tselem" (image) with "tsela" (rib-bone). That's a mistake a Hebrew speaking kindergartener wouldn't make.

[@randybaker6042]

@@annaclarafenyo8185 🤣

[@OldMotherLogo]

@@annaclarafenyo8185 Are you an expert on ancient Hebrew? Could you point me to any papers you have written on the subject? I would be interested in reading them.

[@annaclarafenyo8185]

@@OldMotherLogo I don't need to write anything, I speak ancient Hebrew fluently, and so do millions of others. I immediately and instinctively know what is grammatical and what is not, and so do millions of others (I am not even in the top half of fluent speakers).

[@magepunk2376]

Amazing how much a difference the colorful lighting can make. It instantly makes your videos much more professional looking.

[@Meow-kr4zi]

I think it's that the cooler lighting on the background helps it to recede while visually pushing him forward. Simple, but effective!

[@lavieestlenfer]

I think it looks dumb and high schoolish.

[@BleakComposure]

I like the god who tramped noisily through the woods, and admitted their mistake. They sound more fun and more humble. The writers should have just gone with that god for the rest of the book.🌻

[@CAPSLOCKPUNDIT]

I get a kick out of the part where God makes all kinds of animals, hoping one of them would be a suitable mate. Now I can't stop imagining Adam trying every one of them on for size, with God throwing up his hands and explaining "nobody wrote a manual for this."

[@icollectstories5702]

The argument is that in pre-(Babylonian)Exilic times, the god of Israel was similar to the other gods in the region: superhuman, yes, but also one of many regional gods and in possession of many human emotions. But during the Exile, the Israeli priests did not want the exiles to worship the Babylonian gods, as would have been customary, so the Israeli god became less human and more universal. This also led to fun stuff like the stories in Bel and the Dragon.

[@icollectstories5702]

@@CAPSLOCKPUNDIT This god messed up so badly he used a Flood to reset Earth and start over. An issue with a companion for Adam is that he had both male and female parts, and most furry creatures don't come that way.

[@stevewebber707]

The OT God had humbling aspects for sure. But I don't think I'd call him humble at all. Not when he described himself as jealous, and put his own glory first.

[@matthewnitz8367]

​​@@CAPSLOCKPUNDITI'm also curious what the author's intent was given all the animals already had male and female. Or maybe after God had the great idea for female humans he decided it was a good enough upgrade to apply it to all animals? What about plants, did those not have male and female before either? I'm sure some great fan fiction could be written on these topics.

[@Jaymastia]

The background lighting is soothing. Your camera gained sentience.

[@tenchuu007]

I always go and read the verses Dan talks about after a video. Interesting to resee them with new information.

[@mandyharewood886]

verses

[@zephlodwick1009]

Adam being split in half like a cell to make Eve reminds me of Plato's notion that people originally had 4 arms, legs, eyes, and ears, and were then split in half, making men and women, so your soulmate is your missing other half

[@SpectatorAlius]

You are right to notice that. You should also notice, however, that though the account never quite says it explicity, the pair bonding fails to meet its obvious goal if male/male or female/female bonding are formed!

[@giuseppesavaglio8136]

AAH re writing of the scriptures, a tradition that continues to this day. Thanks Dan.

[@evelynbarton6349]

You were chosen to be our teacher, thank you Sir for all your hard work, I appreciate you.

[@ClayColeYoung]

how am I just now seeing your page?! I am amazed. I am pretty new to the page and have only watched a few vids so far, but the topics appear to be taken right out of my brain. Excellent work!

[@OldMotherLogo]

He has longer videos on the Data Over Dogma channel if you’re interested.

[@Goodellsam]

I have always had a problem with the 2 Genesis stories. I appreciate your perspective.

[@retromacman620]

Love these little longer videos ❤. Getting deeper, but not quite a podcast episode.

[@creamwobbly]

I have kids. I rarely make it past 7 or 8 minutes

[@OldMotherLogo]

@@retromacman620 You are aware he does have a long form podcast, Data Over Dogma, that comes out once a week?

[@retromacman620]

@OldMotherLogo I listen to it every week, yes 😁

[@OldNavyWife]

Thank you so much for this explanation. I’m 70, and this has been confusing to me since I was a very young adult. Your explanation just made it finally make sense.

[@hughb5092]

The first time I read the Bible I was perplexed by the differences? But didn’t understand the reasons till later, which started my slow descent into deconversion.

[@davidkeller6156]

Thank you for this. I’ve argued with flat earthers for many years now, and many are Christians who believe the Bible is inerrant. I try to deal with them without attacking their beliefs in God and Jesus as that just puts them on the defensive. The differences in the creation accounts are something I occasionally bring up and this helps a lot.

[@benmlee]

Ch2 is a summary of Ch1 with emphasis on story behind man and women. Is like saying "I made a chair out of wood and brought to my mom to sit on" I could have made the chair in high school wood shop. After graduation, took the chair home to give to mom. The idea was I was thinking of a gift to mom when making the chair in wood shop. Hence I combine it into one sentence. If I said that to dad, he would completely understand if I relay the story to him. I don't know about this theory that ancient tried to change the story, but left the one they didn't agree with in. People who try to change history typically destroy all other stories. Logically, it does not make sense. Why not just edit chapter 1 and be done. Save yourself the time of adding another chapter that don't agree with chapter 1 so now reader knows you are messing with the story. Weird theory.

[@frenziedwriggling]

@@benmlee there wasn’t a bible when this was being done. so there is one version of creation floating around in scrolls and someone else creates another version that they think improves upon it. then later they become collated together by someone else. it isn’t people taking turns to write chapters of the same book

[@GreenLightMe]

@@benmleeyou really don’t understand how the Torah and New Testament was written lol the Bible is anthology of different peoples scrolls written over 2200 years not even the person writing them knew thier scrolls would make it into a collection lol So the when you see a contradiction the author didn’t know it was a contradiction

[@benmlee]

@@GreenLightMe Does anyone of us have any evidence how Genesis was written? Different books are written by different authors, but what who wrote Genesis? Do we have any evidence?

[@benmlee]

@@frenziedwriggling The book of 2Sam and 1Chro tells same story of David. People don't think of one as trying to improve on the story to make it sound better. We find same thing with the gospels. They are different accounts, but we don't see it as one guy didn't like the story, so he wrote an improved version. Is not like the remake of Hollywood movies here.

[@ArvisTatom]

Great video. Only insight I have is that the word that is almost always translated as heavens is actually the Hebrew word shamayim-which is the word for skies. It’s a small difference but I believe it’s an important distinction.

[@SpectatorAlius]

But don't forget: since they had no way nor even need to distinguish skies and heaven, they tended to use the same word for each. Greek does this too.

[@TacticusPrime]

I actually clued in on how specific and weird the NIV choice to use the past perfect is in 2:8. It wasn't until I actually looked it up that I realized how many terrible and biased translation choices it has.

[@seasquawker]

I think the wording suggests that Genesis 1 thru Genesis 2:4 is speaking of written programming. Similar to how computer code is written. While there was a sequence to the writing, the program doesn't function until all the coding is in place... then the "play button" is pressed after Genesis 2:3, and all the elements come into function together and simultaneously. Isaiah 48:13 This is explains the past tense to the wording in Genesis 2:8 The programming occurred first and in a sequence... then came the operation of the program. Note that God does not engage or interact in any dialogue or in action with any of His creation until after Genesis 2:3. There is only dictated parameters assigned to the creation. Essentially, what it looks like to me is that in Genesis 2:8, a previously programmed character is being dropped into a previously programmed world or map. Kind of like a game of minecraft.

[@NWPaul72]

The differences I could find between it and the KJV convinced me that the Bible was too different from the original texts to be trusted. Dan has helped me understand that they mostly did their best and that the faithfulness of reproduction can be checked against ancient sources. That said, Dan hasn't said anything that's restored my faith in Christianity.

[@TacticusPrime]

@ What nonsense is this? The two entirely separate creation accounts were written by entirely different people at entirely different times, and then stitched together by yet more different people at later times. There's no programming involved. The story has the deity performing magic, forming order out of chaos and thus explaining their own world as they could see it. It's no different from "How Leopard Got His Spots" or some Pacific island demigod dredging their islands up from the deep. It's myth.

[@Fluuber549]

@seasquawker It was an origin story that was riffing off the Enūma Eliš. It was using material from a prior work so that it could show how this God was better than prior Gods. It needs the prior work to show the comparison, but requires new material to show the differences. We see this in music all the time. This argument comes from Josh Bowen PhD I hope I did it justice.

[@MusicalRaichu]

@@NWPaul72 Be true to yourself, that's all you can do. I lost my faith in Christianity too, and in the Bible, except I kept faith in Jesus where it belongs. I've found Dan's work very helpful. As a scientist, I've been trained to follow the data and to constantly test my beliefs.

[@iamfaithfreely]

I first learned about this from Professor Joel Baden. It shocked me to my core. Also, to anyone reading this comment- Marty Solomon's podcast The BEMA Podcast does a fantastic analysis of early Genesis, and it has also radically changed my life. Highly recommend. Genesis is a fascinating book.

[@rutha1464]

Thanks again, Dr. Dan. Your knowledge is exhaustive!

[@ChristianCarrizales]

Good discussion. The different sources of the Torah has always been my favorite area of study. Also, about Adam’s side, I literally just realized that it could have, and very likely have, referred to a literal half of Adam. Makes total sense as to his later statement in poetry.

[@FMdude1]

One of many creation stories around the world. Nobody knows how it all started. For me, it's do no harm. 😊

[@PopGoesTheology]

What a great topic! Thanks, Dann

[@_moodrings_]

My personal favorite translation for tohu va-vohu is “empty-schmempty”

[@PCLee345]

Most critical scholars are in agreement that Genesis was not a composition of a single author; it consists of different layers of tradition. No doubt the Old Testament consists of many layers of oral traditions.

[@jackkrell4238]

Of course, as most of the characters didn't exist and there is no univocality/shared rhetorical goals in the texts.

[@edwardallenthree]

11:01 The archival hypothesis is quite good. It is how we archive short stories and essays. We put them in collections, and when I was in school, we forced students to buy those collections.

It wrinkles my brain that early 5th century BCE means the 490s and 480s rather than the 400s 410s

[@tahnibobonnie]

I’m new here. Have you ever explained how Cain was exiled to a land of other people when his parents were supposed to be the first people on earth? That question got me kicked out of youth group when I was a teen.

[@AraSozir]

Listen to the very first episode of his podcast! Data Over Dogma is the podcast and “In the Beginning” is the name of the episode. He doesn’t speak about Cain in that episode, but his explanation about the meaning about “beginnings” may shed more light for you!

[@johnmcgimpsey1825]

If you type "mcclellan cain" into the KZbin search bar, you'll find his video titled "Responding to a Question about Cain & the Land of Nod"

[@huttj509]

Short version, like how he's talking about two different creation accounts here, the story of Cain likely comes from another tradition that already had the world populated, and was later absorbed into the Genesis account.

[@RamadaDiver]

Because genesis 1 is the creation of human beings in gods image without any particu lar number mentioned . While genesis 2 is situated in Eden which is a temple which adam was created specifically to operate in that temple of Eden. In ither words. There is an unspecified amount if humans created prior to the creation of adam . There's also no verse in the bible that states adam and eve were the first humans

[@Fluuber549]

I heard another scholar talk about the possibility it appeared later in Genesis and got moved forward and past our the story was removed in the process. Several possibilities were mentioned and almost all of them that I recall boiled down to, 'the editor screwed up"

[@FeliciaByNature]

No, let's talk about potato salad.

[@smith2354]

I'd like some potato salad but hold the salad

[@amym.4823]

How do you feel about warm "German potato salad" with bacon bits?

[@marcosvilla6505]

That's what I'm saying

[@azurejester]

*points at the sky* Let's see potato salad!

[@marcosvilla6505]

@@azurejester Makes sense

[@bobmudge4836]

So, an omniscient god didn’t know Adam would be lonely, or that an animal would be a suitable mate, and an omnipotent god could only make Eve with a piece of Adam. Gotcha. 🤣

[@scienceexplains302]

The Eden story doesn’t say anything about omniscience. Omniscience is hinted at elsewhere in the Bible, but also contradicted elsewhere

[@toptv1049]

​@@scienceexplains302The omniscience feature is a constant. It's supposed to apply in all cases whether it's stated or not.

[@holmessph7]

Omniscient doesn’t mean knowing all things at all times. It means knowing all that is knowable. Later century lore has bastardized this concept to create something that doesn’t exist.

[@rebeccahowell2706]

I so enjoy listening to what you have to say. ❤

[@desperateambrose5373]

I was told that, because God is a baseball fan, Genesis 1:1 is actually supposed to read "In the big inning". . . . 😋

[@markmh835]

I think God created the Man during the 7th inning stretch. No data exists as to whether any sort of music was playing. 🤔😄

[@fordprefect5304]

Oh please, it originally said "Once apon a time"

[@austinsweeney9898]

One thing that always struck me odd reading the Bible as a Christian was where in genesis chapter 2 it names the Tigris river that flows east of Assyria but this would have been before the global flood and I couldn’t understand there being the same river before and after a global flood.

[@seasquawker]

It may not be. Perhaps they just renamed the new river with the old name.

[@austinsweeney9898]

@ yes but it’s states where it flowed . Idk

[@seasquawker]

@@austinsweeney9898 A river can and likely would flow in the same place as a previous one once did. The Genesis story says the flood persisted for about a year, and that's a significant portion of time, but probably not enough to wipe out all pre-existing geography.

[@shalltear159]

I love the longer form videos. just wanted to make that known

[@HeyEddie]

I also like them, but please keep making short form videos too. I need something to watch when I go to the bathroom! 👍

[@kelliebporter]

I'm digging your face at the beginning. It expresses so well

[@joshuaalexander1916]

And Baptists will say.... Well, God said because he "breathed" two creation accounts. 😆 Great Work Dan!

[@COMALiteJ]

There’s also the small matter that the Priestly account (Genesis 1) calls God “Elohim” (“God” in the KJV and many other translations) while the earlier Genesis 2 account calls Him “YHWH El” (“the Lᴏʀᴅ God” in the KJV and many other translations).

[@willard73]

This is an extremely helpful summary. Thank you.

[@scienceexplains302]

Different god title Different god perspective Different scope of creation Different length of creation (6 days vs 1) Different reasoning for creation acts Different sequence of Creation Different method/profession of Creation (smith vs sculptor) Different assessment (In G1 almost everything is “good.” In G2 YE see some major things as not good Different relationship between male and female, female and Creator Strong parallels to Enuma Elish in G1 only.

[@GrandmaTurtle]

Thank you for helping cut through the bull$h*t

[@guyr3618]

The camera-zoom was pretty fitting, honestly.

[@kimvette1]

Because Hyundai created it as a luxury sport sedan (and a coupe) with more focus on luxury than sport, and then formed the subsidiary Genesis by the same name?

[@zephlodwick1009]

"Into this wild Abyss, The womb of Nature, and perhaps her grave, Of neither sea, nor shore, nor air, nor fire, But all these in their pregnant causes mixed Confusedly, and which thus must ever fight, Unless th’ Almighty Maker them ordain His dark materials to create more worlds-"

[@sarah07290]

Great to see some appreciation for modern Frank Miller art.

[@DrumWild99]

If humans came from dirt, then why is there still dirt? (It really does sound silly, no matter who says it.)

[@marv-n-24]

"If Eve was made from Adam why was Adam still around?"

[@munbruk]

In G1, plants were created before the sun.

[@zbuilder4664]

God 1 science 0 🎉

[@munbruk]

@@zbuilder4664 The writers did not know any better.

[@mattburns617]

No, sun ignites in Day 1. Day 2 is hot water vapour covering the earth. This is where Genesis 2:4-7 begins, simply being a summary of Days 2 to 6. Day 4 is photosynthesis producing an oxygen-rich atmosphere, and by that time volcanic activity began to settle down a lot, in other words Day 4 is the atmosphere becoming transparent, giving visibility to the sun, moon and stars. There's a good reason why Dan is not considered worth listening to by theologians, because he's lacks taking everything into consideration.

[@munbruk]

@@mattburns617 Pls read Gen1-11 to 19

[@munbruk]

11 Then God said, “Let the earth sprout [j]vegetation, [k]plants yielding seed, and fruit trees on the earth bearing fruit after [l]their kind [m]with seed in them”; and it was so. 12 The earth brought forth [n]vegetation, [o]plants yielding seed after [p]their kind, and trees bearing fruit [q]with seed in them, after [r]their kind; and God saw that it was good. 13 There was evening and there was morning, a third day. 14 Then God said, “Let there be [s]lights in the [t]expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years; 15 and let them be for [u]lights in the [v]expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth”; and it was so. 16 God made the two [w]great lights, the greater [x]light [y]to govern the day, and the lesser [z]light [aa]to govern the night; He made the stars also. 17 God placed them in the [ab]expanse of the heavens to give light on the earth, 18 and [ac]to govern the day and the night, and to separate the light from the darkness; and God saw that it was good. 19 There was evening and there was morning, a fourth day. 20 Then God said, “Let the waters [ad]teem with swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth [ae]in the open [af]expanse of the heavens.” 21 God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarmed after their kind, and every winged bird after its kind; and God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.” 23 There was evening and there was morning, a fifth day.

[@ImplodingChicken]

Dr. McClellan, a question: what is up with the stream in Gen 2:7? I reread the verse while following along with this video and was a bit confused. The Hebrew word is אד, which I had thought means "steam" (though I speak modern Hebrew, not biblical Hebrew). The NRSVue translates it as "stream", but that doesn't really make sense to me in context - the phrase is ואד יעלה מן הארץ והשקה את כל פני האדמה, which says the Ed is rising from the ground/land and watering the whole face of the earth. That makes it sound more like a fog rising up from the ground and spreading out over the earth, rather than a stream appearing (maybe bubbling up from a spring?) and watering one segment of the land. Furthermore, we have the more standard word for "river" נהר used starting in 2:9 and consistently throughout the rest of the chapter. And the only other usage of אד according to Strong's Hebrew is Job 36:27, where NRSVue translates it as "mist" - that sounds more sensible for Gen 2:7 as well. Is this a typo in the NRSVue (stream vs. steam) or am I missing something?

[@annepoitrineau5650]

Were humans created last as the pinnacle of creation, or because they are not able to survive without all that was created before them? While I do not believe in god, I think there is sthg quite admirable in this second myth: we cannot live without the planet/minerals, water, air, plants, other animals. This makes sense and is worth reflecting on in our days of polution and global warming.

[@RevdKathy]

Just listened to your podcast about Lilith. I'm wondering if there isn't a fall story in there with patriarchy as the first sin. But again that story begs the question of God making an error.

[@hardwork8395]

Since they were patriarchal it’s impossible your interpretation could ever be correct.

[@OldMotherLogo]

Well, God does occasionally change their mind which suggests they are capable of error. Isn’t the flood story essentially an admission of error?

[@damien1371]

I really enjoy the idea of the firmament and the dome over it. And everything outside of the dome being water. Makes the flood story work a lot better. I would like to know what was under the water and the pillars underneath the land. I guess they just decided it was too silly and unnecessary to go any further down.

[@hive_indicator318]

Turtles, all the way

[@RamadaDiver]

Sheol

[@NormanFigmatter]

​​@@hive_indicator318I was going to add that, but I decided it was too silly. I had to laugh, though, when I clicked on replies.

[@chadtaylor7633]

I remember many years (25 or so) ago noticing this inconsistency in the bible after having heard from somewhere that the bible was miraculously perfect, with absolutely 0 inconsistencies. I spoke with my exes uncle and somehow he was able to get me back on the “correct” path.

[@littlebitofhope1489]

This was the first time I noticed that agriculture was immediately invented, even though it's only existed for a very short blip during humanities existence.

[@kr88n]

1:06 this makes the “asah brah” meme trend of years past a holy one

[@louisnemzer6801]

Gen 2.19 "וַיִּצֶר" gets translated 'had made' the animals (beforehand) as opposed to just 'made' (right now) in many versions to try to smooth over the problem that in the first version, animals were made before humans

[@SuperBookdragon]

There are two different stories because this book is not inerrant, its full of errors, contradictions and just interesting magical stories that are similiar to fairytales like god himself.

[@Cynicallyskeptic]

Aesop: God created bad scribes

[@MarkPiggy79]

I have all the same Marvel posters in the background 👍 excellent choices.

[@MKxFoxtrotxlll]

Hmmmm. Imperfect creation with perfect thoughts or perfect creation with imperfect thoughts? Or maybe a top to bottom hierarchy vs a bottom to top hierarchy. I don't quite get it yet but I must have my middles and make a triad.

[@GeoffBosco]

Genesis 1 has the chaotic waters that still need to be addressed. Chaos is not good. On the second day God separates the waters above from the waters below and there is no statement about the goodness of this. It's the only day it's absent. I'm pretty sure the authors did that on purpose.

[@errantpursuits4249]

"If you want to take the Bible seriously" ✋ i need to stop you right there. We both know that isn't the goal. For most, the Bible is nothing more than a permission slip.

[@ExtraMedium64240]

I have never heard that before, but that's beautiful! Absolutely perfect!

[@maxmccarrick5671]

Hey Dan, can you please discuss the argument on if the trinity was within the first century AD based upon the Didiache? I see a lot of apologetics on it but no response

[@OldMotherLogo]

@@maxmccarrick5671 He has a few videos on the Trinity, you can do a search. Not sure if he addressed the Didiache.

[@maxmccarrick5671]

@@OldMotherLogo Yeah that's why I mention it specifically. I see many mentioning it as the oldest proof Jesus, the apostle, and first-century christan were Trinitarians. I don't think it is but I want to see the scholarly opinion

[@christopherbeers8095]

@@maxmccarrick5671yeah I think Dan is pretty clear that the Philosophy of the Trinity is not Biblical. He made a video tearing this philosophy apart just the other day in fact.

[@OldMotherLogo]

@ Video on the Trinity nine days ago. There is another from about a month ago. kzbin.info/www/bejne/oqHUZZWanth7iLcsi=Qo7TtM7VjxnZdFrH

[@maxmccarrick5671]

​@@christopherbeers8095 This doesn't address the claim I'm asking for clarification on. Im mentioning the Didiache, a first-century text (1) although a minority of scholars hold it as a second-century text (2). It says the following which could be interpreted as trinitarian. In chapter 7 line 2, "Baptism is to be conferred "in the Name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (3). "With triple immersion in 'living water' (that is, flowing water, probably in a stream)" (4). The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit could be seen as a first century to the trinity. This therefore implies The apostles, Jesus, and the early Christians were trinitarian. I want Dan to address this. Sources: 1. Cross, Frank Leslie; Livingstone, Elizabeth A., eds. (2005). The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (3rd ed.). Oxford: University Press. 2. Britannica, The Editors of Encyclopaedia. "Didachē". Encyclopedia Britannica, 18 Oct. 2021, www.britannica.com/topic/Didache 3. The Didache or Teaching of the Apostles, trans. and ed., J. B. Lightfoot, 7:2,5 4. White, James F. (2006). "The Spatial Setting". In Wainwright, Geoffrey; Tucker, Karen B.W. (eds.). The Oxford History of Christian Worship. Oxford University Press, USA. Pg. 794.

[@XrpRax312]

Similarly how Cain isn’t listed as Adam’s son in Gen 5 genealogy

[@rursus8354]

2:30: Adam saw all the animals and just said _"Boooring!"_ to Ichwich. Ichwich was very tolerant at that time, not as when he ordered Joshua to genocide, so he made a woman out of Adam's rib. We haven't found the skeleton of Adam yet, but whenever we find a male skeleton with only 23 ribs on one side of the chest, we may suspect that it is the skeleton of Adam.

[@helenaconstantine]

The way you describe it makes the Gen 2 story sound more like the myth of Aristophanes in the Symposium. In that story, where human beings were originally composed of two full bodies joined together, they angered Zeus and he split them all apart. That also explains why people want to have sex, to rejoin into a full double body.

[@equinoxproject2284]

Could you imagine what a shit show a debate between gospel authors would be. The H word would be flying.

[@tjrizzo1619]

What I never understood is if Gods spirit is kind gentle loving faithful good joyful patient self controlled and peaceful then how can God be jealous vengeful regretful angry thin skinned and murder people? Jesus said to love and forgive our enemies but Jesus is supposed to come back one day with a sword to avenge Gods enemies?

[@yurironoue5888]

Gnosticism’s answer to this paradox is suggesting that the creator of the Universe and the prison of the Material reality humanity experiences; was an incomplete, and arrogant Demiurge named Yaldabaoth.

[@jackkrell4238]

@@yurironoue5888It's inaccurate to say that Yahweh was fundamentally different attitude wise, as the character is both more caring and violent in both the hebrew and greek texts. It's certainly an ontologically/intradiagetically inconsistent character( as it's portrayed as both an overseeing third party and a human), but to say that the new testament deity is now entirely good is not true. Also, why would the supposedly loving deity create the demiurge and force us to suffer on this palnet to begin with? If you think about it, since the PoE is an issue for christians( not physicalists like myself) and if they want to believe that everything is fine-tuned( it isn't) then gnosticism is more rational under their own specific metaphysics. The demiurge is just a slightly less contrived satan character( which is mostly a post-biblical idea to begin with.)

[@yurironoue5888]

@ Unfortunately, I cannot answer your question, because I am not an expert on Gnostic texts. I listened to the videos of several religious scholars like Dr Justin Sledge, who made two videos, discussing the idea of the Demiurge Yaldabaoth being a cruel, vindictive, short-sighted and vain facsimile of Divinity, an imitation of the True God, who tries to play at being a Supreme Deity because he doesn't know where he came from, but at the same time, has the incredible power to create a Universe (a cage binding souls) away from the Pleuroma.

[@BrianBartholin]

Excellent video - will try to have mu mom watch it with me - she need to learn this stuff.

[@beamdriver5]

Dramatic zoom!

[@garycarter6773]

❤❤❤❤❤thanks Dan!!!!

[@HBWP-r3t]

Keep up the good work, Dan. You will make God's work easier to bring humanity His new covenant. From my perspective, you're doing God's work, and I thank you

[@kentstallard6512]

Seriously? The Bible is mythology, as he's pointing out. Wake up.

[@HBWP-r3t]

@kentstallard6512 are you serious? Why write about it if there isn't something to it. Watch The Telepathy Tapes and tell me about myths again. It's time to ascend humanity.

[@creamwobbly]

The Bible is mythology, correct. The Bible isn't Christianity or faith.

[@HBWP-r3t]

@@creamwobbly I don't care for the narratives either. It's the prophecy that interests me. It takes knowledge to understand what is being prophesied.

[@HBWP-r3t]

Watch The Telepathy Tapes and see how God has sent the nonverbal autistics to help humanity understand about love, mercy, and forgiveness.

[@Shut.Eye.Cinema]

03:00 - It just hit me that the letters between Ayn and Mem are Nun+Samekh, Nes being miracle.

[@falsebeliever8079]

Iwould love it if you spoke of the two setsof ten Commandments! Why do we almost exclusively see the one that Moses smashed and not the one he kept?

[@vampyresgraveyard3307]

Hi Dan I have a question the woman in revelation 12, is that woman Mary mother of jesus? If so Does Mary wear 12 star crown that represent 12 apostles 12 tribes of Israel and Queen of heaven

[@ComradeSam_617]

I've been wondering this 🤔

[@jayb5596]

It was Adams Ribosomes that Eve was taken out of!

[@wendyleeconnelly2939]

Love the videos. Not so sure about the new series where the thumbnails show a disapproving facial expression. It alters the serious, neutral, rational, professional image I otherwise associate with you.

[@vulturnuszan]

listening to this or reading it however you interpret it, why would you take it seriously? Why would anyone even suggest that? Its clearly primitive mans attempt to explain something they don't understand in a fictional story form. it has no relevance today outside its historical value.

[@PeterLGଈ]

Given the number of times God later decided he had screwed up and had to "fix" things, the earlier version, Genesis 2, would seem to be more accurate.

[@ieyasutokagawa5605]

Gen 1 is most accurately translated by the NRSVue. I have lost respect for the NASB 95 and later and the ESV which are claimed to be more literal but are influenced by evangelical doctrine.

[@primafacie9721]

Probably because the collators of the final inclusion of the writings that would comprise the bible decided that including 11 conflicting stories about Genesis would make it too obvious that they were just making it all up and culled it down to 2.

[@jamesshepherd6491]

Well then, there goes the hypothesis of the Eighth Day of creation down the drain. I kind of liked it, but I thought it was a bit of a convenience anyway. Thanks for this clarification.

[@eward1926]

There is also a third creation account: Genesis 5:1-2, which blends the Priestly and Yahwist sources, but is introduced with a title, as though it were intended to be the start of scripture ("This is the book of the generations of Adam.") You could actually omit Genesis 1-4 and improve the coherence of the Old Testament. You'd only run into difficulty upon reaching Paul's epistles, which are so dependent on Genesis 2-3.

[@penttimuhli9442]

There's no contradiction here, just that people misunderstand the passages 🙂

[@DRayL_]

6:59 Easy to answer the camera thing. Ghosts. Or,...the machines are just beginning to become aware and will soon be our over-lords. Carry on.

[@HBWP-r3t]

A time to tear down and a time to build up

[@Lprkan777]

Really, so god didn’t have the foresight to go ahead and make eve instead of parading every animal in front of Adam to find a suitable mate?

[@diogeneslamp8004]

Funny that.

[@Mandelbrot_Set]

Adam should have picked a cat or a dog. It would have saved a lot of trouble later.

[@EarnestApostate]

I do wonder whenever this "the story starts a gen 2:4b" comes up. Was the guy that labeled the verses this inept that he couldn't align the story with the chapter, or did he have some purpose in bluring the lines?

[@jaselando]

Stephen Langton introduced chapter divisions around 1205. He was building on an existing tradition where people were dividing up large texts for ease of use. He was also living in a time where the emphasis of scholarship was often to make things more practical, rather than to keep thematic or literary purity. He wasn't very precise when it comes to narrative shifts and there are dozens of places in the Bible where he starts a new chapter and completely breaks the narrative flow. Genesis 1 + 2 is a good example and there are a lot of others where a narrative starts in one chapter, continues into the next, stops midway, then a new narrative starts in that same chapter, then bleeds over into the next.

[@MrChatternatter]

Was one intended as a screenplay?

[@Fritz_Lost_Sanity]

“So I was reading that creation account, and dude… Says God made a mistake. How I’m gonna write this song about our God being awesome if he be here makin mistakes.”

[@fordprefect5304]

"In the beginning the Universe was created. This had made many people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” ― Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

[@CraigGood]

And the camera zoomed in, and saw that it was good.

[@happybeejv]

Maybe god just has bad grammar, and he didn't notice because he was outside of time and space when he said it all at once forever and anyone who heard the word of god was driven mad by its cosmic horror ubermensch absurdity That was beyond mere mortals to comprehend because they are not all at once forever Like the bagel from that movie That was a parody of the metaphysics of everything everywhere all at once, Which i forgot the name of

[@LOwens-xf8yo]

For eons people have argued which came first, the chicken or the egg? Genesis claims it was the rooster. As if God had no foreknowledge!

[@brianh870]

You said (at 8:20 in the video) that in Genesis chapter one, the creation story goes, "celestial bodies, plants, animals, humans." But plants come before the celestial bodies, right? Genesis 1:11-12 is when plants were created but the sun and moon weren't created until Genesis 1:14-18. Am I misunderstanding something here?

[@ExtraMedium64240]

I love your videos, Dan! My question is, during the period the Bible was written, did the sophistication and subtlety of language exist that you are imposing on it, or could many of these differences be attributed to the inability to draw subtle differences between ideas or just plain sloppy writing?

[@StevenWaling]

The question that occurs is why did they keep the two together?

[@corwin32]

7:00 It was beautifully timed. I wouldn't have said a thing and just called it spirit

[@4305051]

Dan, when you post those short videos skewering people posting disinformation, could you include a link to the original posting or otherwise tell us how to find it?

[@OldMotherLogo]

I suspect he does not do that because he does not want people to harass them.

[@tsdvaks]

This is Gold!

[@anxofernandez3344]

I suppose this divergences happen with all religions. Zoroastrianism and Hinduism have ideas in common with each other and with other Indo-European mythologies but there are variations depending on when and where those stories developed. If someone tried to create a united doctrine copying and pasting bits and pieces of each one of those traditions, the result would also be messy, inconsistent and contradictory.

[@MarkC-iq2bi]

Because it's a backwards literary mirror.