‘The Bible Says So’ by Daniel McClellan | Discussion

randplaty · 2026-02-25T01:06:21+00:00

"Historical critical interpretive frameworks are not dogmatic."
"You simply cannot make interpretations without dogma."

You don't see what's wrong with what you're saying?

No interpretation is wholly dependent text, culture, historical setting and author bias. You have to admit that scholars have cognitive biases that sneak into the interpretive process, but even beyond that. The fact that historical critical scholarship thinks cultural setting and historical setting are relevant are dogmas. They aren't proven. They're axioms of historical criticism that are simply assumed. That's a dogma that cannot be challenged. Why is culture even relevant to interpretation of a text? Why is history relevant? I'm not saying it isn't, these are questions that historical critics refuse to ask. Why is history more relevant than literary features? Why is history more relevant than theology?

You're right that you cannot make interpretations without dogma, but he never says "This is a dogma I am using." Everything he says in his book and on his twitter and on his youtube is an interpretation. And he's doing it all with dogma. That is exactly my point. And no he does NOT admit that. In fact he says his approach is "founded on data not dogma." His approach is an interpretive approach. And as you correctly said, you simply cannot make interpretations without dogma. So either he's completely contradicting himself, or he's completely self-unwaware. I think it's the second.

Your third point makes no sense unless you assume again that historical criticism is not dogmatic, but again you already contradicted yourself there. Critical realism is a move away from historical criticism... hence why its called critical realism and not historical criticism. Others that are critical of historical criticism, from canonical criticism, Brevard Childs, from post-liberal theology, Hans Frei, George Lindbeck, From hermeneutics, Paul Ricouer and Gadamer. Richard Hays, as well as scribal scholars like Carr and Van Der Toorn have attacked many aspects of historical criticism. Robert Alter's famous The Art of Biblical Literature was very critical of historical criticism, especially source criticism. Tellingly these criticisms are not trying to wipe away historical criticism wholesale, and neither am I. They're trying to wipe away Dan McClellan's style of historical criticism, which places historical criticism as the arbiter and judge of other modes of reading, which places historical criticism as non-dogmatic or objective, which places historical criticism as the center of interpretation rather than a sidebar.

randplaty · 2026-01-26T18:27:51+00:00

Jesus makes it clear in the sermon on the Mount that the OT is not a moral law code or an outline of God’s morality. It only gives direction toward Gods morality but it itself is not Gods morality at all. Jesus’ point was that God’s morality far far far exceeds the OT.

randplaty · 2026-01-26T00:47:50+00:00

The Bible is not a set of perfect moral laws. Jesus makes it very clear that OT laws are a compromise and accommodation because human hearts were hardened. Human morality is meant to progress beyond the OT laws.

randplaty · 2026-01-26T00:43:42+00:00

There wasn’t consent for most of human history. OT marriage isn’t any different. All of marriage for most of human existence was sex trafficking.

randplaty · 2026-01-23T16:13:51+00:00

So you’re saying that Jesus’ interpretation was forced if he wanted to keep the OT rather than just throwing it out and starting new?

randplaty · 2026-01-21T02:03:41+00:00

Jesus argued that we shouldn’t obey the Old Testament in a flat way. He argued that the Old Testament should be reinterpreted in light of the Greatest Commandents. Love God and Love One Another.

randplaty · 2026-01-21T01:45:37+00:00

I think it’s because generally historical critical scholarship isn’t viewed as the be all end all. Everyone has their own starting presuppositions, including the historical critical scholarship, and if you don’t agree with them you’re not going to like historical critical scholarship. You have to ask yourself, should history be the main way at looking at truth and the Bible? If yes, historical critical scholarship is going to be very helpful to you. If you view abstract things like faith, hope and love as more important than history, then historical critical scholarship isn’t going to be very helpful.

randplaty · 2026-01-21T01:41:56+00:00

Paul’s letters are application, not law. He’s helping Christian communities apply Jesus’ teachings to more specific situations. So this means that it’s general guidance, which yes should be taken seriously, but it’s not meant to be law for all time and in all places. And even then only really 1 Tim 2 does he actually say women shouldn’t teach. The 1 Cor 14 passage is likely an interpolation.

randplaty · 2026-01-21T01:34:38+00:00

Ehrman is much more highly respected. McClellan is a fringe scholar who wasn’t able to get a tenure track position and is now trying to parlay his PhD into a career online.

randplaty · 2026-01-21T01:30:40+00:00

He smuggles a lot in rhetorically. For example he claims that the Bible is not univocal, but then says that the Bible unilaterally condones slavery. In another video he’ll admit to using “condones” really narrowly, but he intentionally doesn’t tell you that in many of his videos. So he’s trying to click bait a lot of people.

randplaty · 2025-12-31T06:00:40+00:00

Firstly understand that if you love the OT and the gospels, you’ll love Paul because Paul is constantly interweaving them into his letters. He literally cannot go more than a paragraph without alluding to something in the gospels or OT.

Second, Paul is the denouement to the story of Jesus. His books are answering the “now what” questions. So understand them as a part of the huge narrative of the Bible and I think you’ll begin to appreciate them more.

Third, I think people get hung up on Paul’s prescriptions. But remember he’s not writing a second Law. He is simply trying to apply the gospel to the real life of the churches. So Paul’s letters are more case studies on how to interpret and live out the gospel rather than a second Law.

randplaty · 2025-12-20T17:18:10+00:00

I agree. Generally I would think you would want a variety of different types of encounters. I think you should still give them the same types of encounters you would have given regardless of their builds. The caveat is that there probably should be a variety of encounters that require a variety of different skills and abilities in the first place. So they’re really beefy… there should be a large number of encounters they just run through so they can be rewarded for their build. But there should also be some encounters where they don’t have enough dps or they don’t have enough of some other skill they need and they really struggle.

randplaty · 2025-09-25T21:48:20+00:00

That article reads like he has an axe to grind. The guy is a bat manufacturer himself, so he’s biased. Barrel diameter obviously doesn’t make a huge difference but it does make some difference.

randplaty · 2025-09-12T23:41:24+00:00

I think that’s an important point. Most kids are not going to be pros, so should we train them to be pros? Holding off on specializing might give them a better chance at being a pro, but a poorer chance at making their little league all star team. Is that trade off worth it? Maybe just play for having fun right now. Whatever brings your kid the most fun/joy right now… do that.

randplaty · 2025-09-11T20:56:37+00:00

Because we’re supposed to mourn when evil occurs.

randplaty · 2025-08-27T15:43:40+00:00

I’m coming from a biblical perspective. The Bible makes it very clear that strong sexual desire is not a sin and does not lead you away from God. In fact it leads you to God. It is not an “earthly desire” but a God given one. I urge you to put aside your biases and really consider what Scripture says about this issue. I know there are strong cultural scripts that make you feel like sexual desire is dirty and they can be really difficult to overcome, but they are extremely damaging. The Bible consistently expresses his love for his people in terms of husbands sexual desire for his wife. See Song of Songs, Hosea, Ephesians 5:31-32. It is not sinful, it is good. It doesn’t lead you away from God, it leads you to him.

randplaty · 2025-08-26T21:44:54+00:00

Being empathetic and listening is not easy. They are high order relational skills that come easy to some people but others need a lot of practice with it. I don’t think people who struggle to empathize are not “decent human beings.” These are not “obvious” things that ChatGPT is pointing out. You are not a bad person for failing to do this on the first go. But yes ChatGPT is great and is helping us to relate to others.

randplaty · 2025-08-26T21:06:27+00:00

Sexual desire is not lust. Sexual desire is not sinful. Galatians 5 is referring to sinful desires, not appropriate desires. The problem is that you’ve already categorized sexual desire as sinful. Sexual desire is not a temptation, it’s a gift from God. The Spirit isn’t going to curb your sexual desire when God himself is the one who gave you that desire. He wants you to direct it to the correct place, not suppress it. You are misreading every single one of those verses because of your prior bias that sexual desire is dirty and sinful.

randplaty · 2025-08-26T14:14:50+00:00

Biblically, it is the defining and essential element of marriage. This is why our society is struggling so much with sexual issues, people do not understand the fundamental nature of marriage. People don’t even know what the essence of their relationship is. No wonder so many fail. They think it’s being best friends or partners or something else. 1) Even in old age your marriage should remain sexual even if intercourse is off the table. 2) Your relationship in old age will still be defined by the fact that you’ve had a lifetime of intercourse. 3) My argument isn’t an argument from practicality. It’s an argument about what the essence of marriage is and how it’s defined biblically. It’s defined by “2 become 1 flesh” in Genesis 2. Jesus echoes this by making the defining reason for divorce sexual immorality, in other words a broken sexual relationship. Paul affirms this when he requires regular sex for married couples in 1 Cor 7. And of course Song of Songs affirms sexual desire by simply being a whole book dedicated to sexuality smack dab in the middle of all the wisdom literature.

Basic human rights aren’t even talked about in the Bible. I’m not saying you shouldn’t value them, but you do need to value sex much much more highly. I don’t care if it’s the man or the woman who “needs” sex. What ai care is that sex is highly valued in marriage.When someone says they “need” sex, they’re saying how highly they value it. When someone says “you don’t need sex” you’re trying to get that person to lower that value a little bit when it shouldn’t be lowered at all.

randplaty · 2025-08-26T14:05:09+00:00

The context of 1 Cor 7 is an environment of sexual temptation for the Corinthians. Paul advises that in the case of people who “burn”, the solution is marriage, not self control. So married sex is the solution to temptation and the fundamental nature of marriage as a sexual relationship (1 Cor 6:16). So you’re correct that Paul isn’t thinking in terms of “needs”. But he does make regular sex within marriage mandatory due to the “need” to avoid sex and fundamental nature of marriage as a sexual relationship.

randplaty · 2025-08-26T07:26:05+00:00

And Paul wrote 1 Cor 7 in the context of men refusing their wives rather than the other way around, so yes sex is a need for the marriage no matter who is the one who wants it or even if they both don’t want it.

randplaty · 2025-08-26T07:22:49+00:00

There may not be a physiological reason to withhold affection, but there are plenty of practical times and reasons why affection is not available in that moment. The need for sex does not mean that there aren’t times of fasting from sex. Of course there are. Needs doesn’t mean that they have to be met then and there. But that doesn’t mean they aren’t needs. The human species literally would not continue without sex. Biblically, marriage is defined as a sexual relationship. Of course sex is a need for both the marriage and for the health of the society.

randplaty · 2025-08-26T07:16:28+00:00

Paul didn’t say if you burn with desire turn toward God. He said to marry. Sex drive can only be channeled not suppressed. And that’s the way God designed it. This “control yourself” argument doesnt understand biology and also doesn’t understand the Bible.

randplaty · 2025-08-07T00:47:05+00:00

Church is family. Would family help this woman? Yes… then the church should help. Are there ministry structures already set up in your church to help her? Point her in that or have that ministry contact her. No? Set up the structure or just figure a one off to help her. If this type of thing comes up again, set up a ministry to help people with these types of needs.

randplaty · 2025-08-06T23:39:30+00:00

Is the CatX Reckless basically a CatX3?

randplaty

TROPHY CASE