this post was submitted on 28 Sep 2025
180 points (94.1% liked)

No Stupid Questions

43748 readers
877 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.



Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.



Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here. This includes using AI responses and summaries.



Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Flax_vert@feddit.uk -4 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Me when I listen to tiktok instead of doing actual research

[–] m0darn@lemmy.ca 6 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Could you be more constructive with your feedback?

[–] Flax_vert@feddit.uk -4 points 2 days ago (1 children)

It's the same stuff I see copypasted everywhere. A lot of it is speculation from like one academic which gets quoted as fact

[–] m0darn@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I guess you're referring to Dan McClellan. I've consumed a lot of his content via YouTube and his podcast.

It generally seems like a pretty impartial, critical analysis of the data, rather than speculation. But given that he has dominated my understanding of the data I recognize I've got a pretty big blindspot. Where would you point me to refute the view that the bible seems to be a source that has been heavily edited to remove its polytheistic origins?

[–] Flax_vert@feddit.uk -1 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Dan McClellan is a textbook example of this. He is known to block people whom responds to his videos. which is bad faith.

I could point you to another video about the Yahweh pantheon by the same guy.

The Bible hasn't been heavily edited. There isn't much proof for this, notably, no original "unedited" documents. Yahweh was worshipped in a pantheon though, and the Bible records this. But it's the writings of a monotheistic sect.

Numbers 25:1–3:

While Israel lived in Shittim, the people began to whore with the daughters of Moab. These invited the people to the sacrifices of their gods, and the people ate and bowed down to their gods. So Israel yoked himself to Baal of Peor. And the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel.

Judges 2:11-13 ESV [11] And the people of Israel did what was evil in the sight of the Lord and served the Baals. [12] And they abandoned the Lord, the God of their fathers, who had brought them out of the land of Egypt. They went after other gods, from among the gods of the peoples who were around them, and bowed down to them. And they provoked the Lord to anger. [13] They abandoned the Lord and served the Baals and the Ashtaroth.

Judges 3:5-7 ESV [5] So the people of Israel lived among the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Amorites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites. [6] And their daughters they took to themselves for wives, and their own daughters they gave to their sons, and they served their gods. [7] And the people of Israel did what was evil in the sight of the Lord. They forgot the Lord their God and served the Baals and the Asheroth.

Judges 10:6 ESV [6] The people of Israel again did what was evil in the sight of the Lord and served the Baals and the Ashtaroth, the gods of Syria, the gods of Sidon, the gods of Moab, the gods of the Ammonites, and the gods of the Philistines. And they forsook the Lord and did not serve him.

The archaeology is basically just backing it up that there were instances of Yahweh being worshipped alongside other gods.

So the Bible hasn't been edited- it documents this happening.

[–] Jarix@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Uhhh the dead Sea scrolls showed exactly how much the Bible had been edited over there years. The entire book today is edit upon edit upon edit

[–] Flax_vert@feddit.uk 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The dead sea scrolls are the same as the Bible we have today

[–] Jarix@lemmy.world 1 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

There are significant differences as I understand it

[–] Flax_vert@feddit.uk 1 points 10 hours ago (1 children)
[–] Jarix@lemmy.world 1 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago) (1 children)

It was explained to me by someone I know who I trust. I would have to ask them or go looking. Unfortunately I haven't been in contact with them so that's not much of an option for the foreseeable future. As I said it is my understanding,

I was led to believe this isn't really something to argue about as there were entire books that no longer exist in modern versions. This was about 15 years ago and you are the first person to challenge that assertion I've made since then. (It isn't something that has come up all that often to be fair)

Sorry if I'm mistaken or was misled

[–] Flax_vert@feddit.uk 1 points 5 hours ago

The assertion I've generally heard is that it's quite close. Like some things are worded differently to the masoretic text which we used before it (although other manuscripts were right anyway) but no doctrine changes.

You hear the likes of Bart Ehrman claim all these things about thousands of textual variants- most of them are simply spelling errors.

[–] m0darn@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Dan McClellan is a textbook example of this. He is known to block people whom responds to his videos. which is bad faith.

I know he blocks people if he decides they are not engaging productively. Like in the video you linked InspiringPhilosphy says that: when Jesus knew the doubters wondered "who can forgive sins but God"... InspiringPhilosphy insists that they were talking about God the father, but trinitarian belief didn't exist at the time of the composition of the gospel of Mark right? I suspect Dan lost patience with the retrojection of Trinitarianism.

The Bible hasn't been heavily edited. There isn't much proof for this, notably, no original "unedited" documents.

These are the first three edits that come to mind: Pericope of the women caught in adultery is absent from all early manuscripts if the gospel of John. Johannine comma being absent from all Greek manuscripts (except for the forgery from like 1000 years later), short ending of Mark. Also the pseudepigraphal letters of Paul, are editing in a sense.

Yahweh was worshipped in a pantheon though, and the Bible records this. But it's the writings of a monotheistic sect.

What is monotheism? Is it compatible with belief in the power of rival gods like in 2 Kings 3:27?

[–] Flax_vert@feddit.uk 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

That recording in Mark is Jesus teaching Trinitarian belief.

I also said "heavily" edited. A story here in there added in isn't heavy editing. The Johannine Comma existed for a period of time but isn't in modern bibles except maybe a footnote. Even the woman caught in adultery comes with a disclaimer, as well as the ending in Mark.

2 Kings 3:27

Then he took his oldest son who was to reign in his place and offered him for a burnt offering on the wall. And there came great wrath against Israel. And they withdrew from him and returned to their own land.

What rival god?

[–] m0darn@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

I don't think trinitarianism was invented at that point, if Jesus is teaching it there he is doing a terrible job.

The rival god that the son was sacrificed to.

[–] Flax_vert@feddit.uk 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

What do you mean "it wasn't invented"?

[–] m0darn@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)
[–] Flax_vert@feddit.uk 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Jesus was literally claiming to be God in the passage about forgiveness of sins.

[–] m0darn@lemmy.ca 1 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

Pretty sure he claims to be the son of man.

[–] Flax_vert@feddit.uk 1 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

Mark 2:5-12 ESV

[5] And when Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, “Son, your sins are forgiven.” [6] Now some of the scribes were sitting there, questioning in their hearts, [7] “Why does this man speak like that? He is blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?” [8] And immediately Jesus, perceiving in his spirit that they thus questioned within themselves, said to them, “Why do you question these things in your hearts? [9] Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Rise, take up your bed and walk’? [10] But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins”—he said to the paralytic— [11] “I say to you, rise, pick up your bed, and go home.” [12] And he rose and immediately picked up his bed and went out before them all, so that they were all amazed and glorified God, saying, “We never saw anything like this!”

By saying "the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins" was a divinity claim. Because the scribes were correct - only God can forgive sins.

Sin is a transgression against God. So only God is in a position to forgive that.

Psalm 51:4 ESV [4] Against you, you only, have I sinned and done what is evil in your sight, so that you may be justified in your words and blameless in your judgment.

This is written by David despite the fact he committed adultery.

2 Samuel 12:9, 13 ESV [9] Why have you despised the word of the Lord, to do what is evil in his sight? You have struck down Uriah the Hittite with the sword and have taken his wife to be your wife and have killed him with the sword of the Ammonites. [13] David said to Nathan, “I have sinned against the Lord.” And Nathan said to David, “The Lord also has put away your sin; you shall not die.

If someone were to wrong me, would my child be able to forgive them? Nope. I'd have to forgive.

[–] m0darn@lemmy.ca 1 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins

He says the son of man has the authority to forgive sins. If he is trying to explain that he is god, he is doing a terrible job. To me it seems like he is saying "you think only god can forgive sins, I'll show you you're wrong"

If someone were to wrong me, would my child be able to forgive them? Nope.

You're saying that your omnipotent god can't authorize someone to forgive sins on its behalf?

[–] Flax_vert@feddit.uk 1 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

Whenever Jesus did directly claim to be God, they tried to kill Him.

John 8:58-59

Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.” So they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid himself and went out of the temple.

John 10:30-31

"I and the Father are one." The Jews picked up stones again to stone him.

[–] m0darn@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

John 8 starts with the pericope of the women caught in adultery, one of the edits I mentioned....

Do you know what John 10 doesn't say?

The father and I and the holy ghost are one, and three, but most of the time one. 3 persons, one being. Like why didn't he try explaining it to someone that wouldn't try to kill him, and that was writing things down...

[–] Flax_vert@feddit.uk 1 points 19 minutes ago

Argument from silence fallacy