What are my thoughts on the NET?

#maklelan2297

[@pansepot1490]

not to mention that they chose to render "slave" as "servant". 1:12 top of the block of text: "if you BUY a Hebrew SERVANT" I mean, who "buys" a servant? Shouldn't be HIRE a SERVANT? And then there's provisions for ending up owning the "servant" his wife and children for life.

sure but the servant gets a nice awl in his ear

[@danjohnston9037]

Sometimes " The Fit " is just too appropriate for the subject 😏

[@davepruitt]

I originally read the title as: "What are my thoughts on .NET?" and thought that Dan had started covering software engineering topics on his social media...

[@TorqueBow]

Lmfao

[@VioletG43]

I was looking for thoughts on Skynet

[@KaiHenningsen]

@davepruitt Same here. Of course, it is entirely unconnected that I currently have multiple tabs open with .NET documentation ...

[@amrojjeh]

I can see Dan defending the .NET ecosystem against its attacks and misconceptions. The next video would be "responding to false claims about Blazor"

[@carljones9640]

Dan, I have a question about references in biblical scholarship. I don't know if there's a specific phrase for this, but in the area of science I work in there are certain works that must be referenced no matter what. Even if you didn't use anything from them, they are considered so foundational to the field that not including a reference is viewed as almost unacceptable (e.g. not referencing Reynolds' boids in swarm control theory). Setting aside the obvious issues with this for now, I would like to know if there are there any works like that in biblical scholarship, where the reference to that work is simply expected? If so, are there any situations you're aware of where a scholar has made this "required" reference but been forced to intentionally misconstrue the work so that they can continue to support their argument? This is something I am deeply concerned about in the ethics of my own field, and am curious if this is just an issue with us or if it's something that's broader.

[@KaiHenningsen]

mean, it's not as if you can't cite something while explaining how it's wrong ...

[@veggiet2009]

Linguistically speaking that just doesn't seem like a "translation" but rather an interpretation that relies less on the language and more on the cultural imagining of what might've happened

[@14Sciteach]

And "regular" people really have no way to know whether those footnotes are accurate or not. Makes one just want to back out of the whole thing.

[@annaclarafenyo8185]

The best translation for the Hebrew is still the KJV, you just have to adjust to the archaic English.

[@getasimbe]

@@annaclarafenyo8185 No it's not

[@annaclarafenyo8185]

@@getasimbe Anyone who says it's not has not read and compared with the Hebrew. It's remarkably accurate, there are only a handful of errors. Further, it captures a lot of the poetry of the Hebrew, although it's not perfect at that, it's much better than other translations.

[@TheFranchiseCA]

​@@annaclarafenyo8185 I rather like the KJV, but this claim is a reach.

[@getasimbe]

@@annaclarafenyo8185 Most scholars would disagree with you that the KJV is the best translation of the Hebrew. There are better modern translations. That's just a fact

[@theoutspokenhumanist]

I find this problem with the NET to be very strange. I can understand subtle differences in translation where small changes provide support to the publisher's perspective but to translate elohim as judges is blatantly false and clearly and deliberately dishonest. Then to cite references that actually make an opposite determination to what is claimed seems to me, again, to be lying, plain and simple. It is perhaps naive of me to expect basic honesty in a biblical translation but I cannot understand why such, clearly deliberate, decisions were made and how they could be justified.

[@DrVictorVasconcelos]

People really are just that good at lying to themselves. I'm sure the translator can spend 3 hours defending that translation. I don't remember which paper it was but there was one actually that said that smarter people are better at fooling themselves. Better mental gymnastics and whatnot.

[@fre2725]

It's probably pandering. Evangelicals don't want to see "the gods" in a verse like this ("Are you saying the Bible endorses paganism?"). The reading "to God" is semi-okay but creates an inconsistency with other passages in Deuteronomy etc. So they went for the uncontroversial option that wouldn't get their readers upset.

[@shanesullivan460]

It's pretty good. Some would call it a classic, although it's a little dated. Still, who doesn't love a good Sandra Bullock techno-thriller?

[@blowmage]

Literally came here to say this.

[@sdb6757]

It’s a bunch of Draffkorn!

[@amonsmith4227]

Its by far more important that we see the reasoning and context than the translation be dogmatically specific. But 1935 and 1957 are too old of citations even without the source contradicting them.

[@louisnemzer6801]

Probably influenced by John 10:34, which also tried to make "Eloheim" mean humans

[@XIdromanteX]

"Fast and loose with the data" has now entered my academic vocabulary forever

[@marv-n-24]

Interesting, the use of "gods" in Exodus 21:6 seems to be in the extreme minority for modern English translations. I only see 2 translations using it, the 1899 American version of the Douay-Rheims Bible (DRA) and the 2001 modernization of the Wycliffe Bible (WYC). The rest use either God (YLT, NRSVUE, NASB, ASV, ESV, CJB, NLT) or judges (KJV, GNV, NIV, NET, ISV). Then there was two other translations (CEV, GNT) that didn't use God, gods, or judges and instead went "place of worship" for 21:6.

[@connorohare229]

Rip Michael Heiser

[@epincion]

Thanks Dan, on the topic of new translations of scripture what do you think of the St Joseph edition New Catholic Bible which has copious for notes and a commentary that introduces each book of the Bible. After being a reader of the NIV for decades I have moved to the NCB in particular because of its beautiful flowing prose and the very useful footnotes. Love to hear what you think.

[@alanb8884]

It just hit me: Book of Judges, is the title translated from Elohim? The Book of Gods?

[@Dice_roller]

No, it's verbatim the "Book of Judges" - Sēfer Šōp̄əṭīm.

[@zevsero9170]

No, the word there is “Shofetim”. But he’s wrong about “Elohim”; depending on the context it can mean “God”, “gods”, or “judges”. That is how it has always been interpreted, since the very earliest sources. This matters for Jews, because when the word is used as one of God’s Names, it must be treated with respect, must not be erased, must not be said out loud for no reason, must not be thrown in the garbage or taken into a filthy place such as a toilet. But where it isn’t being used in that sense none of these things apply. So it’s important to know what each instance of it means. The same applies to שדי, which can either be one of God’s Names, in which case it’s holy, or it can mean “fields of”, in which case it’s just an ordinary word. It depends entirely on the writer’s intent, which can be derived from the context.

[@joec.9591]

Dan, I'm fairly new to your KZbin channel and greatly appreciate your scholarship. I would be very interested in your take on the use of "remembrance" (ἀνάμνησις) in Luke 22:19. Thanks!

[@Ishco]

My Ex dared me to watch the Stephen Crower "There are two genders, change my mind." video, and he did the exact same thing to every study he quoted. I read every paper he talked about (and more), and not one supported what he was saying. In fact, the only study I could find that says gender affirming care isn't the best thing for trans and non-binary people was a study from Saudia Arabia that had some dubious methods. Every other study I've read is pretty clear: Gender affirming care SAVES LIVES. Sorry to go so far off topic.

[@going_it_alone]

Has anybody seen where Dan lists suggested books for a basic starter library? I've added several book to my library as he suggests them but I'm still looking for a decent commentary that excludes dogma, an exhaustive list of dogmas and accurate lexicons, as I'm moving on from Strong's.

[@Webhead123]

What English translation would you recommend as a general reference text that sticks as close as possible to the word-for-word Hebrew and Greek while still retaining readability? I've heard some suggestions that the NASB is decent but I'm really only beginning my research on this topic.

[@marv-n-24]

Dan usually recommends the NRSVUE. Although I'm not sure he would agree with their translation choice here either (they use God instead of judges).

[@Webhead123]

@@marv-n-24 Thank you. I'll take a closer look.

[@ericpatterson2178]

Religion for Breakfast just did a (lengthy) video on the different English Bible translations, if you want additional information. As @marv-n-24 said previously, usually NRSV Updated Edition is usually used by scholars (and has good pedigree behind it) but does occasionally translate things in a way that some scholars disagree with (discussed in short in aforementioned video).

[@nothingnothing7958]

You could just translate Exodus 21:6 as God as the NASB, ESV, NLT, NRS, ASV, NRS , YLT all do.

[@Marsalis_Money]

Would be interesting to hear your opinion on the - The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures by Jehovah's witnesses

[@chables74]

I’d love to hear thoughts on the Dakes Anointed Study Blible, if Dans ever come across that odd and esoteric relic of the Evangelical world

[@whizler]

What do you think of the Book of Mormon and specifically, translation of the Book of Abraham?

[@magepunk2376]

The NET is plagued with theological biases, especially in the New Testament. Which makes it nearly useless in my opinion.

[@davidallison9499]

I’ll put my money on the translation as it stands. Dan may be incorrect or he might have it right. Dan might be the one who is bearing false testimony on his view of the verse either intentionally or out of lack of understanding.

[@Alkemisti]

What do you think about David Bentley Hart's NT translation?

[@davidbarber3821]

What are your thoughts on Nehemia Gordon's rendering of the tetragrammaton

[@iamfiefo]

But what does Dan think about the Gen Z translation of the Sermon on the Mound?

[@frankallen3634]

You'd think God could make a book that never needs to be understandable

[@Bshue123]

Ahhhhh jumpscare Punisher

[@NickKont]

The intresting fact that i write my comment about the same place from where your cover is taken!

[@tigdogsbody]

What Christian Denomination uses this text?

[@jerrys5946]

Do the other major languages like French, German, Spanish etc get multiple translations? And how about less widespread languages. Do they get bible translation directly from Hebrew and Greek or from a major language like English?

[@byrondickens]

Yes.

[@Sportliveonline]

maybe you could do a translation Dan

[@garycarter6773]

❤❤❤❤❤❤ thanks Dan!!!

[@Randomstuffcore]

What do u think about nwt

[@darapdiengdoh2179]

Sir How the church fathers emerge in the first century???

[@TheDanEdwards]

"How the church fathers emerge in the first century"

[@Darisiabgal7573]

The Bible lie? Perish that thought🤣

[@byrondickens]

What a pathetic little snipe.

[@mapodev]

What bible translation do you recommend?

[@Shuji_the_great]

He has a video on bible translation , but if you want the short answer: NRSV.

[@mansell101]

About a year ago he posted a video with a title like "what bible translations do I recommend?" If you search his videos for "translation" you'll find it. Personally, I think the NRSVue has a solid apparatus behind its translation, but I don't think you'll find anything that's 100% free from valid criticism.

[@NathanielDowell]

In other videos, he's recommended the New Revised Standard, particularly the New Oxford Annotated Bible, which has a lot of scholarly footnotes and introductions.

[@DrVictorVasconcelos]

​​​​@@mansell101I think the most questionable thing about the NRSV is refusing to translate slaves as slaves. The publisher overruled the translators to use servants instead, I think.

[@mansell101]

@@DrVictorVasconcelos Yes, I think that's one of the valid criticisms. One of the unfortunate byproducts of translation by committee is that there will be inevitable compromises, and some of them will make the project worse. I hadn't heard about the publisher overruling the translators, but I guess that makes as much sense as anything. It would answer the natural question of why otherwise educated translators would render that word "servant."

[@tenchuu007]

I've looked around but not seen an answer anywhere: what is your preferred translation?

[@brettmajeske3525]

I know that Dan has mentioned that he likes to use multiple translations and compare them, which seems to be a common practice among many critical experts. That being said he has often recommended the NRSV as a good introduction.

[@AurorXZ]

He's stated that it's the NRSVUE (via SBL Study Bible) and the NRSV (via the Oxford Annotated Study Bible, 5th edition). The second will come with the NRSVUE in it's 6th edition the next year or so. For the Old Testament, he's also recommended Alter's Hebrew Bible, and for the New Testament he's suggested Hart's New Testament.

[@hughb5092]

Dan - Isn’t the NT itself just a translation? Since Jesus/Apostles spoke in ARAMAIC, whoever wrote the NT (Paul is an exception) would had to have translated their words INTO Greek.

[@pansepot1490]

that's not what a translation is. If someone wrote in English a historical novel set in the roman empire would you call that novel a translation because the Roman Emperor and the other characters spoke Latin? I don't think so. The gospels were written in Greek several decades AFTER the death of Jesus. We have no reason to believe that they contain any verbatim speech from Jesus or other persons that were translated from Aramaic into Greek and included in the narrative.

[@johnmcgimpsey1825]

The vast majority of the NT is not made up of quotes, so no, it's not a translation. Given zero evidence that what Jesus or the Apostles said was recorded at the time, and the decades between the crucifixion and when the gospels were written, it's unlikely that any particular quote was actually said, but rather the product of oral tradition (or perhaps fabrication).

[@DrVictorVasconcelos]

I don't think any historian actually things that the New Testament is a reliable source for anything that was spoken in Aramaic. The best you'll find are claims of oral traditions, and given the absence of evidence for the earlier dates traditional biblical scholars use, even that's questionable.

[@markoshun]

I agree, and these stories were passed around from one culture and language to others and written down only after years of refinements and tweaks. Seems to me, the only way to be confident these are actual ‘quotes’, you have to assume divine intervention. In other words, dogma.

[@huttj509]

@@DrVictorVasconcelos I *think* (half remembering, don't have citations) that there are some quotes attributed to Jesus that fall under "this wording is awkward in Greek, but works in Aramaic, so was more likely something said by the bloke." That said, there's also some "this whole story doesn't work in Aramaic, and involves some wordplay that only works in Greek, so almost certainly is added in."

[@4everseekingwisdom690]

What do you think of the book of Mormon? Asking for a friend

[@mrq6270]

lol. I have a feeling that the “friend” in question is your closest and most constant companion and has been with you your whole life.

[@4everseekingwisdom690]

@@mrq6270 wow you got me

[@frogmanvc]

Dan McClellan, YOU are DEAD WRONG on psalm 82 dude! First of all this psalm is lyrical poetry. Which is what a psalm is. 2nd You claim that Moses is some made up whack job make believe writer! Which, by the way, I believe Joseph Smith was. The Caanite gods, assuming they exist, did not run around the Lavant ordering people around and taking notes on tablets of stone. These gods at best were mystical mediators who used mysticism as their line of communication with those on Earth......These are LESSER gods Dan, and these gods KNEW EXACTLY what would happen to them if they ever had a chance to be on tierra firma and behaved badly. Humans are on earth, some of whom do not fear anything - not even gods- humans are the creatures that behave badly. I assume because of all of the bloody sprig battles.. Now for those who desire a nice clean interpretation of psalm 82, please read " You Are Gods"... Search it on the net

[@veridicusmaximus6010]

Wrong video!

[@frogmanvc]

@@veridicusmaximus6010And Dan's a scholar?

[@veridicusmaximus6010]

@@frogmanvc More than you'll ever be!

[@frogmanvc]

@@veridicusmaximus6010 If Dan was. Scholar he would critique his own faith. But claims that is not his expertise. If Dan was a scholar / fair, he would refer you to articles such as: WHY Joseph Smith was a fraud....

[@veridicusmaximus6010]

@@frogmanvc I reject your standards!

[@annaclarafenyo8185]

In light of the fact that you translate "Bereshit Bara Elohim" as "In the beginning of God's creation" (which is entirely false), I would not take your criticism of other translations seriously, although this particular criticism is on point--- Elohim does not ever mean "judges". Obviously.

[@zevsero9170]

Wrong on both points. No less an authority than Rashi translates בראשית ברא אלהים as “at the beginning of God’s creating”. So Dan is right on that one. But אלהים does often mean judges. That is simply how the word works. One example that almost all the Christian translations - including the KJV - seem to get wrong is Exodus 22:28. Both parts of the verse refer to humans who must not be cursed, not to blasphemy, which is prohibited in several other places but not here.

[@annaclarafenyo8185]

@@zevsero9170 Except Rashi does so (correctly) by reinterpreting ברא "bara" as "bro" (same spelling, different voweling). Then it works. But it requires a change to the text as it has been traditionally pronounced. Further, you also have an uncomfortable "and" (a vav) between verse 1 and 2 making this interpretation less likely. It is POSSIBLE that it originally read this way, but it CURRENTLY reads "In the beginning, God created the sky and the Earth", and to return to the hypothetical earlier state, you have to change the text.

[@annaclarafenyo8185]

@@zevsero9170 "Elohim" never means judges.

[@roberthunter6927]

Well, almost every biblical scholar is playing it "fast and loose" whenever they refer to a god or a miracle. Just because some dude imagined up a god, or scribbled stories about it does not demonstrate that god's existence. All you can say is this translation or passage refers to an imagined god. As they say in the law sometimes: "God is a "fact" not in evidence". [Generally in reference to a defense like "God commanded me to do it" murder or whatever].

[@byrondickens]

You don't have the slightest clue. Biblical scholarship studies the text. It doesn't study claims made in it or about it's interpretation.

[@roberthunter6927]

@@byrondickens Keep telling yourself that. It is apologetics, albeit at a scholarly level.

[@byrondickens]

@@roberthunter6927 Were you born that stupid or did you have to practice?