Dan McClellan and Reddit claim that this is the top tier study Bible out there in 2026 year of our Lord. So, I started reading it with high expectations today. However when I got to Genesis 6:3 and read their commentary, I was gobsmacked, it's as if this commentary was written by some retarded tiktoker without the first clue what he's talking about>YHWH limits their life span to what would have been an extraordinary length in the ancient world: one hundred twenty yearsThis is obviously NOT what it means, although many retard believe it. It simply means that after 120 years, God would wipe out humanity.
>>18685653Those are the two main interpretations. The lifespan one makes sense for a few reasons:>that is the maximum human lifespan irl>he mentions it after introducing the topic of human mortality, human flesh
>>18685659are you stupid? there's people living for hundreds of years in the next chapters
>>18685665Faggot the book is nonlinear and interpolated from different texts
>>18685679ok
>>18685686*hugs you*
It is the choice of secular people so of course they love it
>>18685697I was recommended the RSV in a book by a radical fundamentalist new testament professor. Given that book was written 25 years ago, I guess he'd recommend the RSVue nowadays
>>18685697>>18685720The NRSVUe was literally written by a council of Churches
>>18685730whoaaaahhhhh
>>18685653I also started reading this but switched to the ESV SB, people say it's Evangelical and it's true it means that way but it's miles better than the NOA.
>>18686084I started following Anthony Buzzard, his work changed my life. And he seems to recommend (N)RSV or NASB in his books. But he wrote the books 20 years ago, so I dunno about today. In some of his most recent Bible classes on YouTube he was screensharing the Berean Bible
>>18686084>people say it's Evangelical and it's trueCan you give some examples to prove this? I don't want to get influenced into a particular set of beliefs. That's why I was looking for something more eucumenical
>>18686249I think it's ecumenical enough, I'm Catholic and it's my favourite. >>18686247Do those have study bibles?
>>18686250>I think it's ecumenical enough, I'm Catholic and it's my favouriteDoes it have the apocrypha?I never read ESV, Dan McClellan says it's terrible and very biased towards "evangelicalism". I'm not sure about this guys credentials though and maybe he has an axe to grind, not sure. What do you like about it?
>>18686250>Do those have study bibles?I know that the Pic in OP is the latest study bible based on NRSVUE. I'd imagine the older versions are based on RSV and NRSV. Not sure
>>18686258>I'm not sure about this guys credentials thoughHe's a Scholar of the Bible and Religion™Have you not seen any of his videos?
I really like the idea of a study Bible though. I never had one and like most people I don't have the knowledge required to interpret the stories in their historical and cultural context, but I really want to. So study Bible seems to help with that
>>18686260I put a lot of trust in Anthony Buzzard. His credentials seem solid. But I've been fooled before (used to think james white was legit and had a ecumenical scientific mind, oh boy)
There's several red flags I see in Dan McClellan, as someone with experience in being conned.>the action hero t shirt man child shtick (similar red flag to James whites swords and weird clothes)>being fat and unkempt>elaborately and mercilessly trashing random tiktokers without even having the decency to linking to their channel or where they got the material from>going on podcasts with pro abortion anti religion people, ranting about Christian nationalism bad, degeneracy good
>>18685665>there is a contradiction in this book that contradicts itself constantly
>>18686275Other red flags>thinking Moroni was a real person who became an angel and spoke to Joseph Smith>going against his own motto of Data Over Dogma when it contradicts hos dogma
>>18686439>>going against his own motto of Data Over Dogma when it contradicts hos dogmaany examples?
>>18685659Hello anon,OP here, I'm starting to think I was wrong. Which is actually a very good thing, since I wanted to get this Bible......Anyway, I checked the French ecumenical study Bible (TOB), and it confirms
>>18685659
>>18685659Here is the text transcribed from the two images:6,3 (Ce v. difficile à traduire met en évidence le fait que : l’homme n’est en lui-même que chair et qu’il n’appartient pas au monde des dieux. Sa vie lui vient de l’Esprit ou souffle (rouah), du Seigneur (voir 2,7 n.). — Le terme hébreu peut être rapproché d’un verbe signifiant « juger, gouverner » : Le Gr. à demeurer. — Certains mss et versions ont compris : Puisqu’il n’est que chair. — Selon l’auteur de ce v., Dieu limite ici la durée de la vie humaine à 120 ans (voir par contre la tradition sacerdotale en Gn 11,10-32 ; 25,7 ; 47,28) et met ainsi fin à l’époque des patriarches antédiluviens, dont la durée de vie — nettement supérieure — allait toujours en décroissant (voir Gn 5). En Dt 34, Moïse mourut en effet à l’âge de 120 ans.-------------------------6:3 (This verse is very difficult to translate; it highlights the fact that man is, in himself, only flesh and that he does not belong to the world of the gods. His life comes to him from the Spirit or breath (ruach), from the Lord (see 2:7 n.). — The Hebrew term may be related to a verb meaning “to judge, to govern”: the Greek has “to remain.” — Some manuscripts and versions have understood: “Since he is only flesh.” — According to the author of this verse, God limits the duration of human life here to 120 years (see, by contrast, the Priestly tradition in Gen 11:10–32; 25:7; 47:28) and thus brings an end to the era of the antediluvian patriarchs, whose lifespans—considerably longer—were continually decreasing (see Gen 5). In Deut 34, Moses in fact died at the age of 120.
>>18686567Dan has admitted the data does show quite conclusively that the Book of Mormon is a 19th century orally composed work recorded in uneducated Appalachian hick English trying to ape the 17th century language of the KJV, but he dismisses the data because it would hurt his feefees based on his personal dogma.
>>18686641I'm pretty sure that rationally he knows that his religion is a joke, but maybe he was indoctrinated into it from childhood
>>18686669Apparently he's an adult convert who found meaning in life and biblical scholarship after he was approached by Mormon missionaries during a dark period in his life, but that still doesn't change the fact he's putting dogma over data in this case and compartmentalizing his faith and his education, something the mocks evangelical scholars for doing.
>>18686722I was raised "officially catholic, but in reality full blown atheist" and have been trying to find God and the secret to immortality for 20 years or so. That's why I'm reading study Bibles and stuff like that. I find it all very interesting but I'm not very good at reading, I get distracted a lot.Not sure if I will ever believe anything or find a reason to really do so. I can't really imagine why someone would fall for such an obviously fake religion like mormonism, JW, and Islam though
>>18686722>he mocks evangelical scholars for doing.yeah that's not nice, he's kind of a dick to be honest
>>18686731I find tiktok counter-apologetics as pointless as tiktok apologetics. The medium of video is trash. It has an extremely low content-to-noise ratio and brings the worst out of people regardless of their faith or lack thereof.
>>18686730>trying to find God and the secret to immortality.Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.store up for yourselves treasures in heavenIf you want to be complete, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.Love your neighbor as yourself.if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Be complete, therefore, as your heavenly Father is complete.love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.
>>18686791I don't want to be overly rude, but that's not bringing anything to the table.
>>18685653Why are you surprised reddit pseudo-intellectuals turned out to be retarded?
>>18686309>oh, you proved me wrong? that just means its a contradiction heh try again kiddoAtheists should be publicly whipped
>>18685659Another point in favor of the lifespan interpretation is that Noah is described as being at least 500 years old when he has his children before the flood, and the flood is over when he's 601 years old, so, unless the story is somewhat out of order and God waited a number of decades between when he decided to bring about the flood and when he decided to tell Noah about it, or else Noah only had some of his children after God told him about the flood even though they're mentioned earlier, there wouldn't have been 120 years between God mentioning the 120 years and the flood.
While I think it is worthwhile to read commentaries somewhat, I feel like they all insert their own doctrines too much. An even bigger problem is the incorrect assertation of certain historical contexts as facts. I think it is best to let the Bible speak for itself.
>>18686810Plenty of Christians ignore the teachings of the Gospels. They're radically different than what many churches teach. I think it's good that that poster reminded us of them.
>>18686910>I think it is best to let the Bible speak for itself.This is a meme statement. The commentaries help you with framing the text into its historical and cultural context of them it was written. Unless you are an expert on ancient Palestine, you will fail terribly at interpreting the Bible correctly (as most people do)
>>18686817You didn't prove anything, you made a claim that 120 being a lifespan would contradict later events so it must not mean that, but the Bible is filled with contradictions. That's not even the only one there, the Nephilim and their descendants show up in Numbers even though the flood was supposed to have killed everything that wasn't on the ark.>>18686909Noah lived to be 950, but there is still no reason to believe verses 1-4 were addressed to him.
>>18686929What insights about ancient Palestine does one need to correctly interpret the Bible?
>>18686948Stupid question. But for instance, that the thought of Jesus being God would be inconceivable and anachronistic
>>18686987Exactly why they killed him
>>18686933You’re right, I didn’t prove anything. The other guy did though, and you people make yourselves irrefutable because any exegetical argument that could be made against you is excused as a “contradiction”
>>18687883What other guy? The OP came back and said he was wrong.
>>18685653The New Oxford Annotated ‘Bible’ can’t hold a candle to the Haydock Study Bible which blows it out of the water of a mop bucket and wipes the floor with it.
>>18687898OP here. Yes. You live and you learn.
>>18687881God cannot be killed, are you stupid?
>>18687917>The New Oxford Annotated ‘Bible’ can’t hold a candle to the Haydock Study Bible which blows it out of the water of a mop bucket and wipes the floor with it.Oh boy, this seems like a very problematic one.
Right out the gates these polytheistic trinitarians are leaving out the "LORD our God is one LORD"How convenient
>>18687994That’s in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, dingus.
>>18688026Stfu degenerate pagan
>>18687986Gospels record his death
>Ecumenical Approach: It features contributions from Jewish, Protestant, and secular scholars, avoiding a single sectarian biasDo i even need to say
>>18688181not sure what you are trying to imply, seems like a good thing to me
Whose gonna tell him
>>18686914>I think it's good that that poster reminded us of them.I think that you (a.k.a. 'that poster') are completely mistaken about where you are.
>>18688194>Whose gonna tell himI'll tell you: you are a fucking illiterate.
