@maklelan: #maklelan3450 Five Bible contradictions you can’t make go away (Part 4)

xstormsoldierx :

He fled to Megiddo doesn’t mean he died from his wounds there. This is where your assumptions falls apart. Jehu went to Megiddo and the wicked king fled to Samaria and he was captured and brought to Jehu in Megiddo and killed there. None of this is hard to understand. Samaria is just 54 minutes away from magiddo by car. 🚗 . Very close.

therealjakestrong2023 :

Joe Penna / MysteryGuitarMan :

Keep it up Dan, your channel will blow up some day...

user5566316820619 :

remember- when outside sources agree with the Bible it confirms the Bible, and when it contradicts the Bible it's clearly false.

ramonackerstafff :

How about Moses - Sargon of Akkad - Naram-Sin...

Kýrie Eleison :

XX. Examined through multi-criteria decision analysis, this same result is confirmed from another angle. If we evaluate the competing explanations according to six criteria - lexical grounding, grammatical grounding, genre fit, explanatory economy, external confirmation, and freedom from ad hoc rescue hypotheses - then H1 is decidedly better on the first three criteria, also better on the sixth as detailed above, whereas H2 stands better on the fourth, since the mere "two traditions" explanation is literarily simpler. On the fifth criterion, the inscription, as seen above, brings no decisive advantage to either side. Regardless of the weighting of the criteria - whether we doubly weight the linguistic criteria or the economy - H1 remains ahead of H2 in the aggregate ranking, and H2 does not dominate H1 on any single criterion in such a way that it would not lose more on other criteria. This means that H2 is not an efficient solution in the set of competitors, i.e., there exists an explanation that is better than it on at least one criterion without being worse on any other.

justifiedbygrace :

this does not prove that the Bible is not inspired and infallible, These so called Contradictions is no surprise to God. He has his reason for them being the way they are. It may simply be to draw out the nay sayers.

JPMann :

This is a terrific series. I have the same habit as you on here, which is verbosity. Everyone has limited time. Let's both work toward brevity.

girlsandmolly :

would you ever debate someone im curious 🤔?

Marisol Aalto :

I have a question, first time caller, long time listener 😄 Would you consider doing a series on the Prophets of the Hebrew Bible? Are there any that are on some lists and not others? And do they serve a social or literary meaning we (non biblical scholars) may not immediately be aware of?

Apollo :

Deep cuts with Dan…

mango pie :

dan is more energetic today

HOUSE OF MERAVONI :

Keep going Dan 😇

GhostRider014 :

Fascinating

Akhi ex :

They will not address it

un_random_de_tik_tok0 :

here come the entitled apologists to condemn You ✌️🫩

Lady 🤢 Yuck :

A wizard did it

Kýrie Eleison :

XXV. The analysis of the discourse mode provides a further aspect. Throughout, the text constructs an addressed, but silenced opponent: "you", who "approach with dogma", who "will not admit it". This opponent is not a specific author, not a specific commentary edition, not a specific argument, but an unnamed group to which the text simultaneously attributes a position and bad intent. From the perspective of persuasion, this belongs to the toolkit of peripheral route persuasion: it works not by detailing arguments, but with signs of overconfidence, repetition, and the prior discrediting of the other party. The listener does not weigh the data, but accepts the impression that the speaker is an expert, and the other party is prejudiced. This structure is strong from the standpoint of the effectiveness of persuasion, but weak from the standpoint of seeking truth, because it eliminates precisely the element the listener would need: the presentation of the other party's best argument. XXVI. It is also worth examining the semantic operation of the text's key concepts, because semantic shifts occur in several places. The word "credible" in the text sometimes means "linguistically grounded", sometimes "the most probable", and sometimes "it convinces me". The word "tradition" sometimes designates a text source, sometimes an oral antecedent, and sometimes the ideological orientation of a community. The phrase "ideological interest" renders every theological viewpoint of the narrators inherently suspicious, while the text's own viewpoint carries an ideological commitment in the exact same way. These semantic shifts are not stylistic errors: the course of the argument depends on the text proving in the weaker meaning, and then concluding in the stronger meaning.

Kýrie Eleison :

XXX. Based on the above, the claim that 2 Kings 9:27-28 and 2 Chron 22:8-9 stand in formal contradiction with each other is false, because neither passage denies a single assertion of the other; the claim that the Tel Dan inscription provides a third version, incompatible with the two biblical accounts, is false; the claim that the combined reading of the passages necessarily renders the narrators incompetent and misleading is false. The claim that the Chronicles passage preserves a tradition independent of the Kings material is unlikely, given the Chronicler's vocabulary in the passage. The reconstructability of the exact chronological order of events is doubtful, especially the relationship of the wounding, the hiding, and the death that occurred in Megiddo to one another. It is probable that the combined reading outlined in point XV is the correct outline of what happened. It is most probable that the divergence of the two passages stems from the generic characteristic of selective and evaluating narrative, and not from clashing traditions. It is certain that the text assigns a level of certainty to its own conclusion not permitted by the evidence, and that the argument's thesis - the prior disqualification of the opponent - is unfalsifiable, therefore it is not an argument. And it is most certain that the text's final conclusion - "you can trust nothing that the Bible describes anywhere" - does not follow from the data it presented, even if we were to grant it the passage-level difficulty in its entirety.

Kýrie Eleison :

XXXI. The standard is not whether a difficulty disappears from our sight, but whether the assertion of Scripture stands. He who asks that the narrative of Scripture be like a police report, asks for a standard that Scripture itself never took upon itself, and which should not be demanded of the writers inspired by the Spirit: Scripture does not tell everything, but it tells what is sufficient for salvation. And he who asks that the believer resolve every difficulty immediately, asks for a certainty that must be expected not from the text, but from God. The exact hour of Ahaziah's death and every detail of his location are not in our hands, nor is it necessary for us to understand what the passage's assertion is: upon the house of Ahab the prophetic judgment was fulfilled, the king of Judah was swept up in this judgment, and yet the Davidic house remained, because it was not sustained by human faithfulness, but by the promise. Therefore it can be said that the text touches upon exactly what is not asserted in the passage, while it passes judgment with great certainty on what the passage did not even intend to tell. The reliability of Scripture's narrative does not rest on the copyist's hand never making a mistake, nor on our ability to fill every gap, but on the fact that He who spoke is not a man, that He should lie, and His word is fulfilled even if our chronological tables remain incomplete (Numbers 23:19).

user140276246903 :

🥰🥰🥰

Cory Jake Zimmerman :

When Ahaziah was injured, he went to Megiddo first. Jehu heard from his search parties that Ahaziah was there and followed him. But when Ahaziah heard that Jehu was coming, he ran once again, this time hiding in Samaria. When Jehu arrived in Megiddo, he found that the bird had flown the coop, so he sent out more search parties. They eventually found Ahaziah and had him brought to Jehu in Megiddo, and there Ahaziah was executed. Note that nowhere in Chronicles does it say that Ahaziah was killed in Samaria. It only says that he was found and captured there and was then brought to Jehu. It doesn’t say where Jehu was when Ahaziah was brought to him. Kings, on the other hand, doesn’t say anything about Ahaziah dying from his wounds. It merely says he died in Megiddo. At that point, either Jehu buried him there and Ahaziah’s servants later moved him to Jerusalem, or Jehu simply left Ahaziah in the care of Ahaziah’s servants. If that’s the case, when Kings says Jehu buried Ahaziah, it simply means he allowed him to be buried.