Responding to Criticisms of a Video of Mine

Responding to Criticisms of a Video of Mine ![rw-book-cover](https://img.youtube.com/vi/j7m2bSDFomw/maxresdefault.jpg) 🔗 **Source:** [Responding to Criticisms of a Video of Mine](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7m2bSDFomw) > [!note]+ Document Notes > tags: [biblical-criticism, biblical-hebrew, genesis-interpretation] > author: Dan McClellan > source: YouTube > reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7m2bSDFomw > date created: 2024-12-19 12:00 > > # 🏷️ Title: Responding to criticisms of a video of mine >  ## 🧰 Action Inbox - [H1] Learn proper Hebrew lexicon usage — avoid Strong's concordance for serious exegesis #biblical-studies - [H2] Understand merism concept — Genesis 2:5 describes totality of vegetation #hermeneutics - [H3] Check scholarly consensus — academic resources vs. internet apologetics #methodology ## 🧭 Table of Contents - [📝 Summary](#-summary) - [📖 Main Content](#-main-content) - [🗒️ Notes](#️-notes) - [📚 References](#-references) - [🗣️ Paraphrase](#️-paraphrase) - [📰 Newsletter](#-newsletter) - [✅ Action Items](#-action-items) - [🧪 Hypotheses](#-hypotheses) - [📊 Methodology](#-methodology) - [❓ Questions](#-questions) - [🔮 Future Research](#-future-research) - [💡 Implications](#-implications) - [🧠 Learning Styles Assessment](#-learning-styles-assessment) - [📊 Accessibility Assessment](#-accessibility-assessment) - [🌍 DEIB Assessment](#-deib-assessment) - [✅ Logical Validity](#-logical-validity) - [🛡️ DARVO Analysis](#-darvo-analysis) - [🎯 Conclusion](#-conclusion) ### 🔗 References - [Bible Hub - Hebrew Lexicon](https://biblehub.com) - [Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament](https://brill.com/view/db/halot) ## 📝 Summary - McClellan responds to criticism of his Genesis 1-2 vegetation analysis - Critic incorrectly claims Genesis 2:5 only refers to cultivated plants - McClellan demonstrates proper Hebrew lexicon usage showing both wild (siach) and cultivated (eseb) plants - Multiple scholarly commentaries support McClellan's interpretation - Genesis 2:5 uses merism describing absence of all vegetation before human creation ## 📖 Main Content McClellan addresses criticism of his previous video about apparent contradictions between Genesis 1 and 2 regarding vegetation timing. The critic argued Genesis 2:5 only refers to cultivated "plants of the field," not the general vegetation mentioned in Genesis 1. McClellan demonstrates this criticism fundamentally misunderstands the Hebrew text. Genesis 2:5 actually mentions two types of plants: *siach* (wild shrubs/bushes) and *eseb* (cultivated/edible plants). This constitutes a merism - a literary device describing totality by mentioning extremes. The lexical evidence clearly shows *siach* refers to wild desert vegetation, not cultivated plants. Multiple Hebrew lexicons (HALOT, BDB, topical lexicons) consistently define it as uncultivated shrubs surviving in arid conditions. The critic confused this with *eseb*, which does refer to edible/cultivated vegetation. Academic commentaries from David Carr, Ron Hendel, and Peterson all support McClellan's interpretation that Genesis 2:5 describes the absence of all vegetation - both wild and cultivated - before human creation, directly contradicting Genesis 1's sequence. ## 🗒️ Notes #### ⏱️ [00:00](https://youtu.be/j7m2bSDFomw?t=0) — [H1] Initial criticism and McClellan's prior response - Key idea: Critic claims Genesis 2 only mentions cultivated plants, different from Genesis 1 - Evidence: McClellan previously explained siach (wild) vs eseb (cultivated) distinction in merism #### ⏱️ [02:15](https://youtu.be/j7m2bSDFomw?t=135) — [H2] "Most scholars are idiots" rhetoric - Key idea: Critic dismisses overwhelming scholarly consensus with ad hominem - Evidence: "Most of these scholars are idiots" - classic adolescent rhetorical maneuver #### ⏱️ [03:30](https://youtu.be/j7m2bSDFomw?t=210) — [H3] Strong's concordance reveals ignorance - Key idea: Using Strong's numbers indicates lack of Hebrew knowledge - Evidence: "Universal rule: if someone appeals to Strongs, they don't have first clue" #### ⏱️ [04:45](https://youtu.be/j7m2bSDFomw?t=285) — [H2] Lexical analysis of siach (7880) - Key idea: Siach clearly means wild desert vegetation, not cultivated plants - Evidence: "Low-lying desert vegetation, shrubs that survive in arid soil" #### ⏱️ [06:00](https://youtu.be/j7m2bSDFomw?t=360) — [H3] HALOT confirms wild plant meaning - Key idea: Modern lexicons consistently define siach as wild desert shrubs - Evidence: "A wild plant growing in the desert or step" #### ⏱️ [07:30](https://youtu.be/j7m2bSDFomw?t=450) — [H2] Eseb (6212) actually means cultivated plants - Key idea: The word critic ignored actually refers to edible/cultivated vegetation - Evidence: "Provision for humanity... edible vegetation" from topical lexicon #### ⏱️ [09:15](https://youtu.be/j7m2bSDFomw?t=555) — [H1] Genesis 2:5 contains both terms - Key idea: Verse uses merism describing all vegetation from wild to cultivated - Evidence: "Siach of the field and eseb of the field" - comprehensive vegetation #### ⏱️ [11:00](https://youtu.be/j7m2bSDFomw?t=660) — [H2] David Carr commentary support - Key idea: Leading scholar confirms absence of all vegetation interpretation - Evidence: "Wild uncultivated shrubs... domesticated vegetation... both absent" #### ⏱️ [12:30](https://youtu.be/j7m2bSDFomw?t=750) — [H3] Ron Hendel 2024 commentary - Key idea: Recent Anchor Yale Bible confirms totality of vegetation absence - Evidence: "Together these terms signify the totality of vegetation on earth" #### ⏱️ [14:00](https://youtu.be/j7m2bSDFomw?t=840) — [H2] Peterson OTL commentary - Key idea: Third scholarly source confirms earth without flora interpretation - Evidence: "Earth without much, without flora of various sorts" #### ⏱️ [15:15](https://youtu.be/j7m2bSDFomw?t=915) — [H3] "Of the field" semantic range - Key idea: Hebrew sadeh includes both cultivated and wild territory - Evidence: HALOT shows "pasture, open fields, wild territory, habitat of wild animals" #### ⏱️ [17:30](https://youtu.be/j7m2bSDFomw?t=1050) — [H2] TDOT confirms wild meaning - Key idea: Theological dictionary shows sadeh includes undeveloped wild areas - Evidence: "Gathering wild fruit... habitat of jackals, gazelle, wild goat" #### ⏱️ [19:00](https://youtu.be/j7m2bSDFomw?t=1140) — [H1] Comprehensive refutation summary - Key idea: Critic got literally everything wrong about the Hebrew - Evidence: "Mistakes uncultivated plants as cultivated, ignores half of Genesis 2:5" ## 📚 References - [Bible Hub Hebrew Lexicon](https://biblehub.com) - [Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (HALOT)](https://brill.com/view/db/halot) - David Carr, *Genesis 1-11: Primeval History* - Ron Hendel, *Anchor Yale Bible Commentary: Genesis 1-11* (2024) - Peterson, *OTL Commentary on Genesis* ## 🗣️ Paraphrase - Genesis 2:5 uses two Hebrew words describing both wild desert shrubs (siach) and cultivated edible plants (eseb), forming a merism that encompasses all vegetation types - The critic fundamentally misidentified which Hebrew words mean what, confusing wild vegetation terms with cultivated ones while ignoring proper lexical resources - Multiple leading biblical scholars and commentaries confirm that Genesis 2:5 describes the complete absence of all vegetation on earth before human creation, contradicting Genesis 1's timeline ## 📰 Newsletter **Hebrew Lexicon Literacy: Why Proper Resources Matter** Ever wondered why biblical interpretation arguments get so heated? Dan McClellan's latest response video shows exactly what happens when internet critics skip proper lexical research. The key learning: Genesis 2:5 uses a *merism* - describing totality by mentioning extremes. It lists both wild desert shrubs (*siach*) and cultivated plants (*eseb*) to indicate zero vegetation existed before human creation. This directly contradicts Genesis 1's sequence where plants appear first. **Practical takeaway**: When studying biblical Hebrew, avoid Strong's concordances and use actual lexicons like HALOT or BDB. The difference between "performing confidence" and demonstrating competence lies in methodology. **Community connection**: This demonstrates why peer review and scholarly consensus matter in biblical studies - individual interpretation without proper linguistic foundation leads to confident but incorrect conclusions. Resources: [Bible Hub](https://biblehub.com), [Digital Biblical Studies](https://digitalbibleplatform.com), [SBL Resources](https://www.sbl-site.org/) ## ✅ Action Items #### DevRel - Developer advocacy: Create biblical text analysis tools with proper lexical integration - Education: Develop Hebrew lexicon workshops for biblical software developers - Developer experience: Improve API documentation for biblical language databases - Developer marketing: Promote responsible biblical software development practices - Community management: Moderate discussions about biblical interpretation methodology #### Community - Maintainers: Support open-source biblical language tool development - Contributors: Contribute to biblical lexicon digitization projects - Sponsors: Fund biblical studies infrastructure and scholarship access - Ecosystem: Coordinate between biblical studies and digital humanities projects #### WordPress - Documentation: Create guides for biblical studies websites and lexical databases - Accessibility: Ensure biblical language content meets screen reader standards - Polyglots: Support biblical text translation and multilingual commentary sites ## 🧪 Hypotheses - Proper lexical training reduces misinterpretation of biblical texts by amateur interpreters - Academic consensus serves as quality control mechanism against confident but incorrect claims - Visual lexical resources (like Bible Hub) can mislead without proper methodological training - Merism as literary device is consistently misunderstood in popular biblical interpretation ### 📊 Methodology - Comparative analysis of lexical definitions across multiple Hebrew dictionaries - Survey of scholarly commentaries on Genesis 2:5 interpretation patterns - Assessment of correlation between Strong's usage and exegetical errors ### ❓ Questions - How can biblical studies education better emphasize proper lexical methodology? - What role should peer review play in online biblical interpretation content? - How do cognitive biases affect selective reading of lexical evidence? ### 🔮 Future Research - Digital humanities analysis of merism usage patterns in Hebrew Bible - Pedagogical study of effective Hebrew lexicon training methods - Sociological analysis of authority claims in online biblical interpretation ### 💡 Implications - Practice: Biblical interpreters must use proper lexical resources and methodology - Education: Hebrew language training should emphasize lexicon usage over concordances - Policy: Academic institutions should address confident but incorrect online biblical content - Security: Misinformation in religious interpretation can have social consequences ### 🧠 Learning Styles Assessment Reading level estimate: Grade 14-16 (College/Graduate level) #### 👀 Visual learners - Present: Screenshots of lexical entries, Hebrew text comparisons - Improve: Flowcharts showing merism concept, visual Hebrew word breakdowns #### 🔊 Aural learners - Present: Video format with clear narration - Improve: Audio-only version highlighting pronunciation of Hebrew terms #### 🗣️ Verbal learners - Present: Detailed definitions, scholarly quotations, analogies - Improve: Glossary of technical terms, more metaphorical explanations #### 🧩 Kinesthetic learners - Present: Step-by-step lexical lookup demonstration - Improve: Interactive Hebrew lexicon exercises, hands-on research tasks #### 🧠 Logical learners - Present: Systematic refutation structure, scholarly citation patterns - Improve: Decision trees for lexical analysis, methodology checklists #### 🧑‍🤝‍🧑 Social learners - Present: Response format engaging with community criticism - Improve: Discussion prompts about scholarly consensus vs. popular opinion #### 🧘‍♀️ Solitary learners - Present: Detailed individual analysis and research demonstration - Improve: Self-assessment questions about lexical methodology #### 🌿 Naturalistic learners - Present: Desert vegetation examples, agricultural analogies - Improve: More connections between ancient Near Eastern ecology and text ### 📊 Accessibility Assessment #### Screen reader semantics - Present: Clear headings, logical structure - Improve: Alt text for Hebrew screenshots, table formatting for lexical data #### Keyboard navigation - Present: Standard video controls - Improve: Chapter markers, transcript with timestamps #### Contrast and readability - Present: High contrast Hebrew text displays - Improve: Larger text sizes for lexical screenshots #### Text resizing and reflow - Present: Responsive video player - Improve: Scalable Hebrew font rendering #### Media and captions - Present: Auto-generated captions available - Improve: Professional captions with Hebrew transliteration, downloadable transcript #### Forms and interactions - Present: Standard YouTube interface - Improve: Accessible video chapter navigation ### 🌍 DEIB Assessment #### Cultural breadth - Present: Academic biblical studies context - Improve: Acknowledge diverse interpretive traditions, non-Western scholarship #### Inclusive language - Present: Professional academic tone - Improve: Define technical jargon, avoid assuming Christian background #### Neurodiversity support - Present: Clear logical structure, explicit refutation points - Improve: Content warnings for heated rhetoric, summary sections #### Representation - Present: Focus on scholarly methodology over personal identity - Improve: Include diverse voices in biblical studies, acknowledge access barriers #### Psychological safety - Present: Professional critique without personal attacks - Improve: Model respectful disagreement, acknowledge learning opportunities ### ✅ Logical Validity #### Strong reasoning - Deductive strength: Multiple lexical sources consistently support wild vegetation interpretation - Inductive strength: Pattern of scholarly consensus across different commentaries - Causal reasoning: Links critic's Strong's usage to demonstrated ignorance - Analogical strength: Compares Genesis 2:5 structure to known merism examples #### Fallacies - Ad hominem: McClellan briefly engages in personal characterization but focuses on substantive refutation - Appeal to authority: Relies heavily on scholarly consensus - appropriate given expertise levels involved #### Tone of voice - Overall tone: Professional but pointed, demonstrating frustration with confident ignorance while maintaining academic standards ### 🛡️ DARVO Analysis - Deny: No denials present - McClellan acknowledges and addresses criticism directly - Attack: Limited personal characterization but primarily methodological critique - Reverse victim/offender: Not applicable - clear expert vs. amateur dynamic - Emotional cues and rhetoric: Some frustration evident but controlled within academic discourse norms ## 🎯 Conclusion McClellan's response demonstrates the critical importance of proper methodology in biblical interpretation. The critic's confident assertions collapsed when subjected to actual lexical analysis using appropriate scholarly resources. Genesis 2:5's merism structure describing absent vegetation (both wild and cultivated) before human creation remains a legitimate interpretive challenge to Genesis 1's sequence. The broader lesson extends beyond biblical studies: expertise matters, proper resources matter, and confident performance without competent methodology leads to publicly embarrassing errors. Academic consensus exists not as dogma but as quality control against precisely this kind of confident ignorance. For practitioners in biblical studies, digital humanities, or educational content creation, this exchange highlights the need for methodological literacy and the dangers of democratized authority without accompanying competence. ## 🧱 Refactor Appendix ### 📚 Literature Split Pad ### [H1] Hebrew lexicons clearly distinguish wild from cultivated vegetation > [!quote] [Responding to criticisms of a video of mine](https://www. --- ## Full Transcript [00:00] Despite what a lot of apologists will [00:02] tell you, there's just nothing remotely [00:04] approximating. [00:05] >> Yeah, he here's where he continues to [00:07] lie to you. [00:08] >> All right, let's see it. [00:10] >> And [00:12] Genesis 2 says plants of the field, [00:15] which are cultivated plants. It's not [00:16] even the same word in Genesis 1. It's a [00:19] different type of plant. In Genesis 1, [00:21] it's grass of the fe grass and [00:23] vegetation. But these plants of the [00:26] field in Genesis 2 are cultivated [00:28] plants. That's why it said there was no [00:29] man to till the ground. [00:31] >> Uh I actually directly addressed this in [00:34] that video. Here's what I had to say. [00:36] And I want to go back to uh verse 5. No [00:39] plant of the field was yet in the earth. [00:41] The word there for plant is seak, which [00:43] can mean a bush or a shrub, but is used [00:46] to refer to wild vegetation. And no [00:49] vegetation of the field had yet sprung [00:51] up. This is as and that refers to grass [00:54] or plants. This is usually cultivated [00:57] vegetation. So, what we've got going on [00:59] here is an explanation that on the whole [01:01] earth there was neither wild nor [01:04] cultivated vegetation. Why? Because [01:06] there was no rain, which is how we get [01:08] wild vegetation, and there was no human [01:10] to work or till the earth, which is how [01:13] we get cultivated vegetation. So, [01:16] Genesis 2 is actually somewhat of a [01:19] merorism. It's describing vegetation [01:21] that grows wild and vegetation that [01:25] requires cultivation. And it says there [01:27] was neither of either type on the entire [01:30] earth. And that is widely agreed by the [01:34] overwhelming majority of scholars to [01:37] indicate there was no vegetation of any [01:40] kind until after the human had been [01:43] created. So suggesting that it's all [01:46] reducible down to one concept of only [01:49] cultivated vegetation not only entirely [01:52] gets the Hebrew wrong and entirely [01:55] ignores half of the description of [01:57] what's going on here in this verse, but [02:00] it also ignores the part of the video [02:02] where I quite explicitly and clearly [02:05] drew that distinction. [02:07] >> So he he doesn't even know the basic uh [02:11] he doesn't even he doesn't get it. [02:14] He doesn't. He's not a scholar, folks. [02:16] Read Genesis 2. Most scholars agree with [02:19] him. Well, then most of these scholars [02:20] are idiots. [02:22] >> Yes. The classic adolescent rhetorical [02:24] maneuver of just nakedly asserting that [02:27] if the overwhelming majority of the [02:29] world's experts on this issue disagree [02:32] with me, they must just be idiots for no [02:35] other reason than that. I say so. But [02:38] this content creator is going to attempt [02:40] to simulate the provision of some kind [02:44] of scholarly backing for their claim. [02:46] But they're just going to demonstrate [02:47] that they very clearly don't know the [02:49] Hebrew and don't even know how to read a [02:52] lexicon. [02:53] Let's take a look. Look at this. Any [02:56] plant of the field. Okay, that plant of [02:59] the field is a cultivated plant. It's [03:02] not the same. It's not the same Hebrew [03:04] as Genesis 1. [03:06] So, here's where this content creator [03:08] demonstrates that they don't really know [03:09] what they're talking about because they [03:10] put this image up on the screen. This is [03:13] from Bible Hub. This is basically your [03:16] Strongs breakdown of this verse. And [03:18] there's a universal rule about arguing [03:20] about the Bible on the internet. And it [03:22] is that if someone appeals to Strongs, [03:25] they don't have the first clue what [03:26] they're talking about. And this content [03:28] creator demonstrates this rule because [03:30] they point to the second and third line [03:33] down plant of the field and insist that [03:36] is cultivated plants. Uh and that is [03:39] entirely false. The Hebrew word sak is [03:42] the Hebrew in the second line down [03:44] Strong's number 7880. [03:46] And all this content creator had to do [03:48] was click on that number to bring up the [03:51] entry in Bible hub from not just Strongs [03:54] but also BDB. Another almost as outdated [03:58] a resource, but one that is actually a [04:00] lexicon. But let's take a look at sea. [04:02] It is a masculine noun. KJV renders [04:05] bush, plant, or shrub. The NASB renders [04:08] bushes or shrub. Strong's exhaustive [04:11] concordance renders bush, plant or [04:13] shrub. And then we can go down to BDB, [04:16] bush, shrub, plant. The topical lexicon [04:19] goes into a bit more detail. Seak [04:22] denotes low-lying desert vegetation. [04:25] Shrubs. that survive in arid soil. [04:29] This is not cultivated stuff. And we can [04:32] look at an actual upto-date lexicon, the [04:35] hollowot, the Hebrew and Aramaic lexicon [04:37] of the Old Testament for sea. Uh the [04:41] beginning is kind of introductory stuff. [04:43] But on the next page, we get in the bold [04:45] around the middle of the page shrub [04:48] bush. And then the last two lines at the [04:50] very bottom, a wild plant growing in the [04:53] desert or step. This is very clearly not [04:58] cultivated plant life. However, here's [05:02] another indication that this content [05:03] creator doesn't have the first clue what [05:05] they're talking about. There is a word [05:07] on this image that they shared that does [05:10] mean cultivated plant, although more [05:12] directly it means plant that is used for [05:14] food. It's at the very bottom. Herb. [05:17] Strong's number on the left is 6212 [05:20] ASV. If this content creator had looked [05:22] up that word by clicking on that number [05:26] in Bible hub, they would have brought up [05:28] this lexical summary. ASV grass herb [05:33] vegetation. KJV renders grass or herb. [05:35] Strong's exhaustive concordance renders [05:37] grass or herb. Here's a more detailed [05:40] entry in the BDB. Herbage. [05:44] The topical lexicon goes into more [05:46] detail. The middle section is relevant [05:48] here. Provision for humanity. Before sin [05:50] entered the world, the creator placed [05:52] mankind in a garden already furnished [05:54] with edible vegetation. Behold, I have [05:57] given you every seedbearing plant as on [06:01] the face of all the earth. So that's [06:05] Genesis 1:29. We see here from the [06:07] NRSVU. God said, "See, I have given you [06:10] every plant yielding seed that is upon [06:13] the face of all the earth." And here's [06:16] the Hebrew as zore aer alit [06:22] plant or herb uh seeding seed which is [06:26] on the face of all the earth. So this [06:30] word [06:32] does mean cultivated plant. The problem [06:34] with this content creator's argument is [06:36] that this word is in Genesis 2:5. As we [06:40] can see here, we have [06:42] which means bush, shrub, desert, [06:45] vegetation of the field, and as [06:50] means cultivated or edible plants of the [06:53] field. Genesis 2:5 is kind of like a [06:55] merorism describing all vegetation on [06:59] earth from the edible cultivated all the [07:02] way to the wild bushes of the step or [07:05] the arid desert. [07:07] all vegetation on the earth. There was [07:10] none in Genesis 2:5 because God had not [07:15] caused it to rain, which is responsible [07:17] for causing the wild vegetation, and [07:20] there was no man to till the ground, [07:22] which is what is responsible for the [07:24] cultivatable [07:26] edible vegetation. So, these two texts [07:29] are describing things slightly [07:31] differently. [07:32] One is describing wild versus [07:34] cultivated/edible. [07:36] The other is describing just what is [07:38] provided for humanity by God without [07:41] concern for whether it is wild or [07:43] cultivated. God has it springing up [07:47] prior to humanity. So it's not referring [07:50] to cultivated. It's referring to edible [07:52] plants that spring up naturally because [07:55] of the water, not because of someone [07:58] tilling the ground. So, they're [08:00] addressing vegetation in two entirely [08:02] different ways, which is why they're not [08:05] using identical terms of art. Neither of [08:08] these are really terms of art to begin [08:10] with, but there is an awful lot of [08:13] overlap between these two which indicate [08:15] that when Genesis 2:5 says there was not [08:18] yet on the entire earth the sea or the [08:22] asv, it very clearly contradicts with [08:26] what we have in Genesis 1 all the way [08:29] down to verse 29 where it talks about [08:31] God already having provided every plant [08:34] that yields seed upon all the face of [08:37] the the earth that does not exist until [08:40] after the human is created in Genesis [08:42] 2:5. And let's look at those idiots who [08:46] are the scholars, the experts who are [08:48] saying all this. For instance, we have [08:50] David Carr's Colehammer commentary on [08:52] the primeval history. Genesis 1-11 [08:55] somewhat like Genesis 1 1-2 describe the [08:58] universe before God began to create [09:00] heaven and earth. 2 5-6 describe the [09:03] prologue to God's creation of humanity. [09:05] In this case, the focus is on a lack of [09:07] vegetation. So far, the broader earth [09:10] has none of the wild uncultivated [09:12] shrubs, sea [09:15] of the field because Adonai has not yet [09:18] caused it to rain on earth. And the more [09:21] domesticated vegetation of the field, [09:23] Asvade, has not yet sprouted because [09:26] there was no human to work the ground. [09:30] We can look at Ron Hendel's 2024 anchor [09:33] Yale Bible commentary volume on the [09:35] primeval history genesis 1-11. When wild [09:38] plants of the field were not yet on the [09:40] earth when grasses of the field had not [09:42] yet grown elsewhere seak wild plants [09:46] denotes a plant or shrub that grows in [09:48] the wild. But here it indicates wild [09:50] plants in general in complement to asse [09:54] grasses which refers to plants used for [09:57] food including domestic grains. Both are [10:00] qualified withad of the field which [10:02] highlights this earthly local. Together [10:04] these terms signify the totality of [10:06] vegetation on earth which is absent in [10:09] the primeval situation. This lack is [10:11] rectified in 2 8-9 when Adonai God [10:14] plants the garden in Eden. We can look [10:16] at Peterson's OTL commentary volume on [10:20] Genesis. The precation state in 25-6, as [10:24] does the priestly account, presupposes [10:26] the existence of the earth, though not [10:27] in the form that ancient Israelites knew [10:29] it. The word earth appears three times [10:31] and ground two times in 25-6, indicating [10:34] the stage on which the action in chapter [10:37] 2 will play out. The earth in 25 is an [10:39] earth without much, without flora of [10:42] various sorts, without rain, and without [10:44] humans. What does exist is water, a [10:47] feature shared by the priestly report, [10:49] though it is not the cosmic or heavenly [10:51] deep of Genesis 1:2, but a spring that [10:54] irrigates the entire earth, literally [10:56] the face of the ground, a phrase that [10:58] the priestly writer reworked into the [11:00] face of the waters. Of these three [11:03] elements that are lacking, the pre [11:04] priestly account narrates the beginning [11:06] of plantings and the creation of humans, [11:08] but not the creation of rain. Now, if [11:11] this content creator attempts any [11:13] response at all, most likely it is going [11:15] to be to argue that it is specifically [11:18] the genative phrase of the field that [11:21] marks these references to flora and then [11:24] later to fauna as limited to whatever [11:28] property pertains to the Garden of Eden [11:31] or at least limits it to a much narrower [11:34] scope than the broader global references [11:37] to the creation of plants and animals in [11:39] Genesis one. That's really the only [11:42] argument you can even remotely plausibly [11:45] make here. However, it is wrong for [11:48] multiple different reasons, including [11:49] the fact that Genesis 2:5 refers to the [11:53] sea and the asv of the earth of all the [11:57] earth. And also when it talks about the [12:00] fauna that is created later, you have [12:02] the parallel of the animals of the field [12:04] and the birds of the sky. And birds of [12:06] the sky is in Genesis 1. the exact same [12:10] phrase which is set parallel to the [12:14] behemoth of the earth, the wild animals [12:17] of the earth. So the concept of animals [12:21] of the land and the animals of the earth [12:23] are parallel just as they are each [12:26] parallel to birds of the sky in Genesis [12:29] 1 and in Genesis 2. But additionally, [12:31] the phrase in English of the field is [12:34] not a term of art that refers [12:36] specifically to cultivated private or [12:39] possessed property. It also refers to [12:42] uncultivated wild territory. And we can [12:46] look at a couple different resources for [12:47] this. We can look at halot, the Hebrew [12:49] and Aramaic lexicon of the Old [12:50] Testament. Sad is in the upper left. [12:53] This entry goes on for three pages [12:55] because the term has a pretty broad [12:57] semantic range. On the right column [12:59] about halfway down you see the bold [13:01] giving you the general idea pasture [13:03] acreage piece of landscape territory and [13:06] then sense number one is pasture open [13:08] fields land. So this can include [13:12] property that you own and that you [13:14] cultivate like a garden like crops but [13:19] it doesn't necessarily have to refer to [13:20] that. It can also refer to open [13:22] uncultivated wild unpossessed territory. [13:26] The entry goes on uh you can see pasture [13:29] territory of a tribe or of a people [13:30] pasturage territory of a city field [13:32] arable land. It goes on to the third [13:35] page as well. We can look in TDOT the [13:38] theological dictionary of the Old [13:39] Testament. There's a larger entry for [13:42] SAD. I want to start here at the bottom [13:43] of page 40. Section number three talks [13:46] about developed fields. So this is where [13:48] SAD can refer to cultivated fields. Uh [13:53] paragraph number one is talking about [13:54] agriculture. down at the bottom. Number [13:56] two talks about livestock. But then in [13:59] section number four, we get undeveloped [14:01] fields where it talks about gathering [14:03] wild fruit. In other words, it can refer [14:05] to the wild territories where vegetation [14:09] just springs up wildly. Some of it can [14:12] be taken for food, some of it cannot. [14:15] And then below that, number two, habitat [14:17] of wild animals. I think it's [14:19] particularly instructive that the last [14:20] two lines talk about the habitat of [14:23] jackals, the dough, the gazelle, and the [14:25] wild goat. This is obviously not the [14:28] fauna that inhabits a garden or a [14:32] cultivated piece of land. In fact, the [14:34] reference to jackals in Isaiah 43:20 is [14:36] specifically about uninhabited [14:38] wilderness where wild animals that we [14:41] generally stay away from roam. So it's [14:45] very clearly not limited to [14:48] a cultivated field like the garden of [14:51] Eden and it is the overwhelming academic [14:53] consensus that when it refers to the [14:55] seak sad and when it refers to the asv [14:59] sad it does not mean the wild and the [15:03] cultivated plants that are growing in [15:05] the garden of Eden. It's quite [15:07] explicitly talking about no such [15:09] vegetation growing on the earth. So, [15:13] while that is the only response that [15:15] this content creator could possibly come [15:17] up with that has any chance of even [15:19] approximating plausibility, it's still [15:21] not an adequate response. It still [15:25] doesn't take into account all the data. [15:27] It still betrays abject ignorance of how [15:30] these terms work throughout the Hebrew [15:32] Bible. It is still just wrong. To recap, [15:37] Genesis 2:5 mentions both cultivated and [15:40] uncultivated vegetation, and it says [15:42] that neither existed on the earth until [15:47] after the human was created. So [15:50] suggesting that it is only referring to [15:52] cultivated plants and then suggesting [15:55] that that's not what's mentioned in [15:57] Genesis 1 ignores the other part of [16:01] Genesis 2:5 gets the Hebrew entirely [16:04] wrong and mistakes the word for [16:06] uncultivated plants as the word for [16:08] cultivated plants and then ignores that [16:10] Genesis 1 actually does use the exact [16:12] same word as for cultivated plants that [16:16] is used in Genesis 2:5. And all of this [16:19] demonstrates conclusively, definitively, [16:22] that this content creator doesn't even [16:24] begin to have the first clue what [16:27] they're talking about. They're just [16:28] performing confidence and conviction and [16:32] condescension without having the first [16:34] clue what they're talking about. The [16:37] fact that he doesn't know that just why [16:39] do you guys consider he's lying to you? [16:42] He's probably one of the most uneducated [16:44] scholars I've ever seen in my entire [16:46] life. So please explain Dan Mlen why [16:48] you're lying to people about Genesis 2. [16:49] It's plant of the field. It's a [16:51] cultivated plant, dude. [16:54] Look at it. So I have demonstrated [16:57] conclusively how you entirely fumbled [17:00] the bag here and got literally [17:02] everything wrong. I would like you to [17:05] explain to your audience that you don't [17:08] really know the Hebrew here and that you [17:11] royally screwed this up. [17:16] And the fit for this video is X-Men [17:18] 2011.  [[3. Resources/Readwise/Full Document Contents/Articles/Responding to Criticisms of a Video of Mine|Full Document Contents]] ## Document Notes --- tags: #biblical-criticism #biblical-hebrew #genesis-interpretation author: Dan McClellan source: YouTube reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7m2bSDFomw date created: 2024-12-19 12:00 --- # 🏷️ Title: Responding to criticisms of a video of mine ## 🧰 Action Inbox - [H1] Learn proper Hebrew lexicon usage — avoid Strong's concordance for serious exegesis #biblical-studies - [H2] Understand merism concept — Genesis 2:5 describes totality of vegetation #hermeneutics - [H3] Check scholarly consensus — academic resources vs. internet apologetics #methodology ## 🧭 Table of Contents - [[#📝 Summary]] - [[#📖 Main Content]] - [[#🗒️ Notes]] - [[#📚 References]] - [[#🗣️ Paraphrase]] - [[#📰 Newsletter]] - [[#✅ Action Items]] - [[#🧪 Hypotheses]] - [[#📊 Methodology]] - [[#❓ Questions]] - [[#🔮 Future Research]] - [[#💡 Implications]] - [[#🧠 Learning Styles Assessment]] - [[#📊 Accessibility Assessment]] - [[#🌍 DEIB Assessment]] - [[#✅ Logical Validity]] - [[#🛡️ DARVO Analysis]] - [[#🎯 Conclusion]] ### 🔗 References - [Bible Hub - Hebrew Lexicon](https://biblehub.com) - [Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament](https://brill.com/view/db/halot) ## 📝 Summary - McClellan responds to criticism of his Genesis 1-2 vegetation analysis - Critic incorrectly claims Genesis 2:5 only refers to cultivated plants - McClellan demonstrates proper Hebrew lexicon usage showing both wild (siach) and cultivated (eseb) plants - Multiple scholarly commentaries support McClellan's interpretation - Genesis 2:5 uses merism describing absence of all vegetation before human creation ## 📖 Main Content McClellan addresses criticism of his previous video about apparent contradictions between Genesis 1 and 2 regarding vegetation timing. The critic argued Genesis 2:5 only refers to cultivated "plants of the field," not the general vegetation mentioned in Genesis 1. McClellan demonstrates this criticism fundamentally misunderstands the Hebrew text. Genesis 2:5 actually mentions two types of plants: *siach* (wild shrubs/bushes) and *eseb* (cultivated/edible plants). This constitutes a merism - a literary device describing totality by mentioning extremes. The lexical evidence clearly shows *siach* refers to wild desert vegetation, not cultivated plants. Multiple Hebrew lexicons (HALOT, BDB, topical lexicons) consistently define it as uncultivated shrubs surviving in arid conditions. The critic confused this with *eseb*, which does refer to edible/cultivated vegetation. Academic commentaries from David Carr, Ron Hendel, and Peterson all support McClellan's interpretation that Genesis 2:5 describes the absence of all vegetation - both wild and cultivated - before human creation, directly contradicting Genesis 1's sequence. ## 🗒️ Notes #### ⏱️ [00:00](https://youtu.be/j7m2bSDFomw?t=0) — [H1] Initial criticism and McClellan's prior response - Key idea: Critic claims Genesis 2 only mentions cultivated plants, different from Genesis 1 - Evidence: McClellan previously explained siach (wild) vs eseb (cultivated) distinction in merism #### ⏱️ [02:15](https://youtu.be/j7m2bSDFomw?t=135) — [H2] "Most scholars are idiots" rhetoric - Key idea: Critic dismisses overwhelming scholarly consensus with ad hominem - Evidence: "Most of these scholars are idiots" - classic adolescent rhetorical maneuver #### ⏱️ [03:30](https://youtu.be/j7m2bSDFomw?t=210) — [H3] Strong's concordance reveals ignorance - Key idea: Using Strong's numbers indicates lack of Hebrew knowledge - Evidence: "Universal rule: if someone appeals to Strongs, they don't have first clue" #### ⏱️ [04:45](https://youtu.be/j7m2bSDFomw?t=285) — [H2] Lexical analysis of siach (7880) - Key idea: Siach clearly means wild desert vegetation, not cultivated plants - Evidence: "Low-lying desert vegetation, shrubs that survive in arid soil" #### ⏱️ [06:00](https://youtu.be/j7m2bSDFomw?t=360) — [H3] HALOT confirms wild plant meaning - Key idea: Modern lexicons consistently define siach as wild desert shrubs - Evidence: "A wild plant growing in the desert or step" #### ⏱️ [07:30](https://youtu.be/j7m2bSDFomw?t=450) — [H2] Eseb (6212) actually means cultivated plants - Key idea: The word critic ignored actually refers to edible/cultivated vegetation - Evidence: "Provision for humanity... edible vegetation" from topical lexicon #### ⏱️ [09:15](https://youtu.be/j7m2bSDFomw?t=555) — [H1] Genesis 2:5 contains both terms - Key idea: Verse uses merism describing all vegetation from wild to cultivated - Evidence: "Siach of the field and eseb of the field" - comprehensive vegetation #### ⏱️ [11:00](https://youtu.be/j7m2bSDFomw?t=660) — [H2] David Carr commentary support - Key idea: Leading scholar confirms absence of all vegetation interpretation - Evidence: "Wild uncultivated shrubs... domesticated vegetation... both absent" #### ⏱️ [12:30](https://youtu.be/j7m2bSDFomw?t=750) — [H3] Ron Hendel 2024 commentary - Key idea: Recent Anchor Yale Bible confirms totality of vegetation absence - Evidence: "Together these terms signify the totality of vegetation on earth" #### ⏱️ [14:00](https://youtu.be/j7m2bSDFomw?t=840) — [H2] Peterson OTL commentary - Key idea: Third scholarly source confirms earth without flora interpretation - Evidence: "Earth without much, without flora of various sorts" #### ⏱️ [15:15](https://youtu.be/j7m2bSDFomw?t=915) — [H3] "Of the field" semantic range - Key idea: Hebrew sadeh includes both cultivated and wild territory - Evidence: HALOT shows "pasture, open fields, wild territory, habitat of wild animals" #### ⏱️ [17:30](https://youtu.be/j7m2bSDFomw?t=1050) — [H2] TDOT confirms wild meaning - Key idea: Theological dictionary shows sadeh includes undeveloped wild areas - Evidence: "Gathering wild fruit... habitat of jackals, gazelle, wild goat" #### ⏱️ [19:00](https://youtu.be/j7m2bSDFomw?t=1140) — [H1] Comprehensive refutation summary - Key idea: Critic got literally everything wrong about the Hebrew - Evidence: "Mistakes uncultivated plants as cultivated, ignores half of Genesis 2:5" ## 📚 References - [Bible Hub Hebrew Lexicon](https://biblehub.com) - [Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (HALOT)](https://brill.com/view/db/halot) - David Carr, *Genesis 1-11: Primeval History* - Ron Hendel, *Anchor Yale Bible Commentary: Genesis 1-11* (2024) - Peterson, *OTL Commentary on Genesis* ## 🗣️ Paraphrase - Genesis 2:5 uses two Hebrew words describing both wild desert shrubs (siach) and cultivated edible plants (eseb), forming a merism that encompasses all vegetation types - The critic fundamentally misidentified which Hebrew words mean what, confusing wild vegetation terms with cultivated ones while ignoring proper lexical resources - Multiple leading biblical scholars and commentaries confirm that Genesis 2:5 describes the complete absence of all vegetation on earth before human creation, contradicting Genesis 1's timeline ## 📰 Newsletter **Hebrew Lexicon Literacy: Why Proper Resources Matter** Ever wondered why biblical interpretation arguments get so heated? Dan McClellan's latest response video shows exactly what happens when internet critics skip proper lexical research. The key learning: Genesis 2:5 uses a *merism* - describing totality by mentioning extremes. It lists both wild desert shrubs (*siach*) and cultivated plants (*eseb*) to indicate zero vegetation existed before human creation. This directly contradicts Genesis 1's sequence where plants appear first. **Practical takeaway**: When studying biblical Hebrew, avoid Strong's concordances and use actual lexicons like HALOT or BDB. The difference between "performing confidence" and demonstrating competence lies in methodology. **Community connection**: This demonstrates why peer review and scholarly consensus matter in biblical studies - individual interpretation without proper linguistic foundation leads to confident but incorrect conclusions. Resources: [Bible Hub](https://biblehub.com), [Digital Biblical Studies](https://digitalbibleplatform.com), [SBL Resources](https://www.sbl-site.org/) ## ✅ Action Items #### DevRel - Developer advocacy: Create biblical text analysis tools with proper lexical integration - Education: Develop Hebrew lexicon workshops for biblical software developers - Developer experience: Improve API documentation for biblical language databases - Developer marketing: Promote responsible biblical software development practices - Community management: Moderate discussions about biblical interpretation methodology #### Community - Maintainers: Support open-source biblical language tool development - Contributors: Contribute to biblical lexicon digitization projects - Sponsors: Fund biblical studies infrastructure and scholarship access - Ecosystem: Coordinate between biblical studies and digital humanities projects #### WordPress - Documentation: Create guides for biblical studies websites and lexical databases - Accessibility: Ensure biblical language content meets screen reader standards - Polyglots: Support biblical text translation and multilingual commentary sites ## 🧪 Hypotheses - Proper lexical training reduces misinterpretation of biblical texts by amateur interpreters - Academic consensus serves as quality control mechanism against confident but incorrect claims - Visual lexical resources (like Bible Hub) can mislead without proper methodological training - Merism as literary device is consistently misunderstood in popular biblical interpretation ### 📊 Methodology - Comparative analysis of lexical definitions across multiple Hebrew dictionaries - Survey of scholarly commentaries on Genesis 2:5 interpretation patterns - Assessment of correlation between Strong's usage and exegetical errors ### ❓ Questions - How can biblical studies education better emphasize proper lexical methodology? - What role should peer review play in online biblical interpretation content? - How do cognitive biases affect selective reading of lexical evidence? ### 🔮 Future Research - Digital humanities analysis of merism usage patterns in Hebrew Bible - Pedagogical study of effective Hebrew lexicon training methods - Sociological analysis of authority claims in online biblical interpretation ### 💡 Implications - Practice: Biblical interpreters must use proper lexical resources and methodology - Education: Hebrew language training should emphasize lexicon usage over concordances - Policy: Academic institutions should address confident but incorrect online biblical content - Security: Misinformation in religious interpretation can have social consequences ### 🧠 Learning Styles Assessment Reading level estimate: Grade 14-16 (College/Graduate level) #### 👀 Visual learners - Present: Screenshots of lexical entries, Hebrew text comparisons - Improve: Flowcharts showing merism concept, visual Hebrew word breakdowns #### 🔊 Aural learners - Present: Video format with clear narration - Improve: Audio-only version highlighting pronunciation of Hebrew terms #### 🗣️ Verbal learners - Present: Detailed definitions, scholarly quotations, analogies - Improve: Glossary of technical terms, more metaphorical explanations #### 🧩 Kinesthetic learners - Present: Step-by-step lexical lookup demonstration - Improve: Interactive Hebrew lexicon exercises, hands-on research tasks #### 🧠 Logical learners - Present: Systematic refutation structure, scholarly citation patterns - Improve: Decision trees for lexical analysis, methodology checklists #### 🧑‍🤝‍🧑 Social learners - Present: Response format engaging with community criticism - Improve: Discussion prompts about scholarly consensus vs. popular opinion #### 🧘‍♀️ Solitary learners - Present: Detailed individual analysis and research demonstration - Improve: Self-assessment questions about lexical methodology #### 🌿 Naturalistic learners - Present: Desert vegetation examples, agricultural analogies - Improve: More connections between ancient Near Eastern ecology and text ### 📊 Accessibility Assessment #### Screen reader semantics - Present: Clear headings, logical structure - Improve: Alt text for Hebrew screenshots, table formatting for lexical data #### Keyboard navigation - Present: Standard video controls - Improve: Chapter markers, transcript with timestamps #### Contrast and readability - Present: High contrast Hebrew text displays - Improve: Larger text sizes for lexical screenshots #### Text resizing and reflow - Present: Responsive video player - Improve: Scalable Hebrew font rendering #### Media and captions - Present: Auto-generated captions available - Improve: Professional captions with Hebrew transliteration, downloadable transcript #### Forms and interactions - Present: Standard YouTube interface - Improve: Accessible video chapter navigation ### 🌍 DEIB Assessment #### Cultural breadth - Present: Academic biblical studies context - Improve: Acknowledge diverse interpretive traditions, non-Western scholarship #### Inclusive language - Present: Professional academic tone - Improve: Define technical jargon, avoid assuming Christian background #### Neurodiversity support - Present: Clear logical structure, explicit refutation points - Improve: Content warnings for heated rhetoric, summary sections #### Representation - Present: Focus on scholarly methodology over personal identity - Improve: Include diverse voices in biblical studies, acknowledge access barriers #### Psychological safety - Present: Professional critique without personal attacks - Improve: Model respectful disagreement, acknowledge learning opportunities ### ✅ Logical Validity #### Strong reasoning - Deductive strength: Multiple lexical sources consistently support wild vegetation interpretation - Inductive strength: Pattern of scholarly consensus across different commentaries - Causal reasoning: Links critic's Strong's usage to demonstrated ignorance - Analogical strength: Compares Genesis 2:5 structure to known merism examples #### Fallacies - Ad hominem: McClellan briefly engages in personal characterization but focuses on substantive refutation - Appeal to authority: Relies heavily on scholarly consensus - appropriate given expertise levels involved #### Tone of voice - Overall tone: Professional but pointed, demonstrating frustration with confident ignorance while maintaining academic standards ### 🛡️ DARVO Analysis - Deny: No denials present - McClellan acknowledges and addresses criticism directly - Attack: Limited personal characterization but primarily methodological critique - Reverse victim/offender: Not applicable - clear expert vs. amateur dynamic - Emotional cues and rhetoric: Some frustration evident but controlled within academic discourse norms ## 🎯 Conclusion McClellan's response demonstrates the critical importance of proper methodology in biblical interpretation. The critic's confident assertions collapsed when subjected to actual lexical analysis using appropriate scholarly resources. Genesis 2:5's merism structure describing absent vegetation (both wild and cultivated) before human creation remains a legitimate interpretive challenge to Genesis 1's sequence. The broader lesson extends beyond biblical studies: expertise matters, proper resources matter, and confident performance without competent methodology leads to publicly embarrassing errors. Academic consensus exists not as dogma but as quality control against precisely this kind of confident ignorance. For practitioners in biblical studies, digital humanities, or educational content creation, this exchange highlights the need for methodological literacy and the dangers of democratized authority without accompanying competence. ## 🧱 Refactor Appendix ### 📚 Literature Split Pad ### [H1] Hebrew lexicons clearly distinguish wild from cultivated vegetation > [!quote] [Responding to criticisms of a video of mine](https://www. --- ## Full Transcript [00:00] Despite what a lot of apologists will [00:02] tell you, there's just nothing remotely [00:04] approximating. [00:05] >> Yeah, he here's where he continues to [00:07] lie to you. [00:08] >> All right, let's see it. [00:10] >> And [00:12] Genesis 2 says plants of the field, [00:15] which are cultivated plants. It's not [00:16] even the same word in Genesis 1. It's a [00:19] different type of plant. In Genesis 1, [00:21] it's grass of the fe grass and [00:23] vegetation. But these plants of the [00:26] field in Genesis 2 are cultivated [00:28] plants. That's why it said there was no [00:29] man to till the ground. [00:31] >> Uh I actually directly addressed this in [00:34] that video. Here's what I had to say. [00:36] And I want to go back to uh verse 5. No [00:39] plant of the field was yet in the earth. [00:41] The word there for plant is seak, which [00:43] can mean a bush or a shrub, but is used [00:46] to refer to wild vegetation. And no [00:49] vegetation of the field had yet sprung [00:51] up. This is as and that refers to grass [00:54] or plants. This is usually cultivated [00:57] vegetation. So, what we've got going on [00:59] here is an explanation that on the whole [01:01] earth there was neither wild nor [01:04] cultivated vegetation. Why? Because [01:06] there was no rain, which is how we get [01:08] wild vegetation, and there was no human [01:10] to work or till the earth, which is how [01:13] we get cultivated vegetation. So, [01:16] Genesis 2 is actually somewhat of a [01:19] merorism. It's describing vegetation [01:21] that grows wild and vegetation that [01:25] requires cultivation. And it says there [01:27] was neither of either type on the entire [01:30] earth. And that is widely agreed by the [01:34] overwhelming majority of scholars to [01:37] indicate there was no vegetation of any [01:40] kind until after the human had been [01:43] created. So suggesting that it's all [01:46] reducible down to one concept of only [01:49] cultivated vegetation not only entirely [01:52] gets the Hebrew wrong and entirely [01:55] ignores half of the description of [01:57] what's going on here in this verse, but [02:00] it also ignores the part of the video [02:02] where I quite explicitly and clearly [02:05] drew that distinction. [02:07] >> So he he doesn't even know the basic uh [02:11] he doesn't even he doesn't get it. [02:14] He doesn't. He's not a scholar, folks. [02:16] Read Genesis 2. Most scholars agree with [02:19] him. Well, then most of these scholars [02:20] are idiots. [02:22] >> Yes. The classic adolescent rhetorical [02:24] maneuver of just nakedly asserting that [02:27] if the overwhelming majority of the [02:29] world's experts on this issue disagree [02:32] with me, they must just be idiots for no [02:35] other reason than that. I say so. But [02:38] this content creator is going to attempt [02:40] to simulate the provision of some kind [02:44] of scholarly backing for their claim. [02:46] But they're just going to demonstrate [02:47] that they very clearly don't know the [02:49] Hebrew and don't even know how to read a [02:52] lexicon. [02:53] Let's take a look. Look at this. Any [02:56] plant of the field. Okay, that plant of [02:59] the field is a cultivated plant. It's [03:02] not the same. It's not the same Hebrew [03:04] as Genesis 1. [03:06] So, here's where this content creator [03:08] demonstrates that they don't really know [03:09] what they're talking about because they [03:10] put this image up on the screen. This is [03:13] from Bible Hub. This is basically your [03:16] Strongs breakdown of this verse. And [03:18] there's a universal rule about arguing [03:20] about the Bible on the internet. And it [03:22] is that if someone appeals to Strongs, [03:25] they don't have the first clue what [03:26] they're talking about. And this content [03:28] creator demonstrates this rule because [03:30] they point to the second and third line [03:33] down plant of the field and insist that [03:36] is cultivated plants. Uh and that is [03:39] entirely false. The Hebrew word sak is [03:42] the Hebrew in the second line down [03:44] Strong's number 7880. [03:46] And all this content creator had to do [03:48] was click on that number to bring up the [03:51] entry in Bible hub from not just Strongs [03:54] but also BDB. Another almost as outdated [03:58] a resource, but one that is actually a [04:00] lexicon. But let's take a look at sea. [04:02] It is a masculine noun. KJV renders [04:05] bush, plant, or shrub. The NASB renders [04:08] bushes or shrub. Strong's exhaustive [04:11] concordance renders bush, plant or [04:13] shrub. And then we can go down to BDB, [04:16] bush, shrub, plant. The topical lexicon [04:19] goes into a bit more detail. Seak [04:22] denotes low-lying desert vegetation. [04:25] Shrubs. that survive in arid soil. [04:29] This is not cultivated stuff. And we can [04:32] look at an actual upto-date lexicon, the [04:35] hollowot, the Hebrew and Aramaic lexicon [04:37] of the Old Testament for sea. Uh the [04:41] beginning is kind of introductory stuff. [04:43] But on the next page, we get in the bold [04:45] around the middle of the page shrub [04:48] bush. And then the last two lines at the [04:50] very bottom, a wild plant growing in the [04:53] desert or step. This is very clearly not [04:58] cultivated plant life. However, here's [05:02] another indication that this content [05:03] creator doesn't have the first clue what [05:05] they're talking about. There is a word [05:07] on this image that they shared that does [05:10] mean cultivated plant, although more [05:12] directly it means plant that is used for [05:14] food. It's at the very bottom. Herb. [05:17] Strong's number on the left is 6212 [05:20] ASV. If this content creator had looked [05:22] up that word by clicking on that number [05:26] in Bible hub, they would have brought up [05:28] this lexical summary. ASV grass herb [05:33] vegetation. KJV renders grass or herb. [05:35] Strong's exhaustive concordance renders [05:37] grass or herb. Here's a more detailed [05:40] entry in the BDB. Herbage. [05:44] The topical lexicon goes into more [05:46] detail. The middle section is relevant [05:48] here. Provision for humanity. Before sin [05:50] entered the world, the creator placed [05:52] mankind in a garden already furnished [05:54] with edible vegetation. Behold, I have [05:57] given you every seedbearing plant as on [06:01] the face of all the earth. So that's [06:05] Genesis 1:29. We see here from the [06:07] NRSVU. God said, "See, I have given you [06:10] every plant yielding seed that is upon [06:13] the face of all the earth." And here's [06:16] the Hebrew as zore aer alit [06:22] plant or herb uh seeding seed which is [06:26] on the face of all the earth. So this [06:30] word [06:32] does mean cultivated plant. The problem [06:34] with this content creator's argument is [06:36] that this word is in Genesis 2:5. As we [06:40] can see here, we have [06:42] which means bush, shrub, desert, [06:45] vegetation of the field, and as [06:50] means cultivated or edible plants of the [06:53] field. Genesis 2:5 is kind of like a [06:55] merorism describing all vegetation on [06:59] earth from the edible cultivated all the [07:02] way to the wild bushes of the step or [07:05] the arid desert. [07:07] all vegetation on the earth. There was [07:10] none in Genesis 2:5 because God had not [07:15] caused it to rain, which is responsible [07:17] for causing the wild vegetation, and [07:20] there was no man to till the ground, [07:22] which is what is responsible for the [07:24] cultivatable [07:26] edible vegetation. So, these two texts [07:29] are describing things slightly [07:31] differently. [07:32] One is describing wild versus [07:34] cultivated/edible. [07:36] The other is describing just what is [07:38] provided for humanity by God without [07:41] concern for whether it is wild or [07:43] cultivated. God has it springing up [07:47] prior to humanity. So it's not referring [07:50] to cultivated. It's referring to edible [07:52] plants that spring up naturally because [07:55] of the water, not because of someone [07:58] tilling the ground. So, they're [08:00] addressing vegetation in two entirely [08:02] different ways, which is why they're not [08:05] using identical terms of art. Neither of [08:08] these are really terms of art to begin [08:10] with, but there is an awful lot of [08:13] overlap between these two which indicate [08:15] that when Genesis 2:5 says there was not [08:18] yet on the entire earth the sea or the [08:22] asv, it very clearly contradicts with [08:26] what we have in Genesis 1 all the way [08:29] down to verse 29 where it talks about [08:31] God already having provided every plant [08:34] that yields seed upon all the face of [08:37] the the earth that does not exist until [08:40] after the human is created in Genesis [08:42] 2:5. And let's look at those idiots who [08:46] are the scholars, the experts who are [08:48] saying all this. For instance, we have [08:50] David Carr's Colehammer commentary on [08:52] the primeval history. Genesis 1-11 [08:55] somewhat like Genesis 1 1-2 describe the [08:58] universe before God began to create [09:00] heaven and earth. 2 5-6 describe the [09:03] prologue to God's creation of humanity. [09:05] In this case, the focus is on a lack of [09:07] vegetation. So far, the broader earth [09:10] has none of the wild uncultivated [09:12] shrubs, sea [09:15] of the field because Adonai has not yet [09:18] caused it to rain on earth. And the more [09:21] domesticated vegetation of the field, [09:23] Asvade, has not yet sprouted because [09:26] there was no human to work the ground. [09:30] We can look at Ron Hendel's 2024 anchor [09:33] Yale Bible commentary volume on the [09:35] primeval history genesis 1-11. When wild [09:38] plants of the field were not yet on the [09:40] earth when grasses of the field had not [09:42] yet grown elsewhere seak wild plants [09:46] denotes a plant or shrub that grows in [09:48] the wild. But here it indicates wild [09:50] plants in general in complement to asse [09:54] grasses which refers to plants used for [09:57] food including domestic grains. Both are [10:00] qualified withad of the field which [10:02] highlights this earthly local. Together [10:04] these terms signify the totality of [10:06] vegetation on earth which is absent in [10:09] the primeval situation. This lack is [10:11] rectified in 2 8-9 when Adonai God [10:14] plants the garden in Eden. We can look [10:16] at Peterson's OTL commentary volume on [10:20] Genesis. The precation state in 25-6, as [10:24] does the priestly account, presupposes [10:26] the existence of the earth, though not [10:27] in the form that ancient Israelites knew [10:29] it. The word earth appears three times [10:31] and ground two times in 25-6, indicating [10:34] the stage on which the action in chapter [10:37] 2 will play out. The earth in 25 is an [10:39] earth without much, without flora of [10:42] various sorts, without rain, and without [10:44] humans. What does exist is water, a [10:47] feature shared by the priestly report, [10:49] though it is not the cosmic or heavenly [10:51] deep of Genesis 1:2, but a spring that [10:54] irrigates the entire earth, literally [10:56] the face of the ground, a phrase that [10:58] the priestly writer reworked into the [11:00] face of the waters. Of these three [11:03] elements that are lacking, the pre [11:04] priestly account narrates the beginning [11:06] of plantings and the creation of humans, [11:08] but not the creation of rain. Now, if [11:11] this content creator attempts any [11:13] response at all, most likely it is going [11:15] to be to argue that it is specifically [11:18] the genative phrase of the field that [11:21] marks these references to flora and then [11:24] later to fauna as limited to whatever [11:28] property pertains to the Garden of Eden [11:31] or at least limits it to a much narrower [11:34] scope than the broader global references [11:37] to the creation of plants and animals in [11:39] Genesis one. That's really the only [11:42] argument you can even remotely plausibly [11:45] make here. However, it is wrong for [11:48] multiple different reasons, including [11:49] the fact that Genesis 2:5 refers to the [11:53] sea and the asv of the earth of all the [11:57] earth. And also when it talks about the [12:00] fauna that is created later, you have [12:02] the parallel of the animals of the field [12:04] and the birds of the sky. And birds of [12:06] the sky is in Genesis 1. the exact same [12:10] phrase which is set parallel to the [12:14] behemoth of the earth, the wild animals [12:17] of the earth. So the concept of animals [12:21] of the land and the animals of the earth [12:23] are parallel just as they are each [12:26] parallel to birds of the sky in Genesis [12:29] 1 and in Genesis 2. But additionally, [12:31] the phrase in English of the field is [12:34] not a term of art that refers [12:36] specifically to cultivated private or [12:39] possessed property. It also refers to [12:42] uncultivated wild territory. And we can [12:46] look at a couple different resources for [12:47] this. We can look at halot, the Hebrew [12:49] and Aramaic lexicon of the Old [12:50] Testament. Sad is in the upper left. [12:53] This entry goes on for three pages [12:55] because the term has a pretty broad [12:57] semantic range. On the right column [12:59] about halfway down you see the bold [13:01] giving you the general idea pasture [13:03] acreage piece of landscape territory and [13:06] then sense number one is pasture open [13:08] fields land. So this can include [13:12] property that you own and that you [13:14] cultivate like a garden like crops but [13:19] it doesn't necessarily have to refer to [13:20] that. It can also refer to open [13:22] uncultivated wild unpossessed territory. [13:26] The entry goes on uh you can see pasture [13:29] territory of a tribe or of a people [13:30] pasturage territory of a city field [13:32] arable land. It goes on to the third [13:35] page as well. We can look in TDOT the [13:38] theological dictionary of the Old [13:39] Testament. There's a larger entry for [13:42] SAD. I want to start here at the bottom [13:43] of page 40. Section number three talks [13:46] about developed fields. So this is where [13:48] SAD can refer to cultivated fields. Uh [13:53] paragraph number one is talking about [13:54] agriculture. down at the bottom. Number [13:56] two talks about livestock. But then in [13:59] section number four, we get undeveloped [14:01] fields where it talks about gathering [14:03] wild fruit. In other words, it can refer [14:05] to the wild territories where vegetation [14:09] just springs up wildly. Some of it can [14:12] be taken for food, some of it cannot. [14:15] And then below that, number two, habitat [14:17] of wild animals. I think it's [14:19] particularly instructive that the last [14:20] two lines talk about the habitat of [14:23] jackals, the dough, the gazelle, and the [14:25] wild goat. This is obviously not the [14:28] fauna that inhabits a garden or a [14:32] cultivated piece of land. In fact, the [14:34] reference to jackals in Isaiah 43:20 is [14:36] specifically about uninhabited [14:38] wilderness where wild animals that we [14:41] generally stay away from roam. So it's [14:45] very clearly not limited to [14:48] a cultivated field like the garden of [14:51] Eden and it is the overwhelming academic [14:53] consensus that when it refers to the [14:55] seak sad and when it refers to the asv [14:59] sad it does not mean the wild and the [15:03] cultivated plants that are growing in [15:05] the garden of Eden. It's quite [15:07] explicitly talking about no such [15:09] vegetation growing on the earth. So, [15:13] while that is the only response that [15:15] this content creator could possibly come [15:17] up with that has any chance of even [15:19] approximating plausibility, it's still [15:21] not an adequate response. It still [15:25] doesn't take into account all the data. [15:27] It still betrays abject ignorance of how [15:30] these terms work throughout the Hebrew [15:32] Bible. It is still just wrong. To recap, [15:37] Genesis 2:5 mentions both cultivated and [15:40] uncultivated vegetation, and it says [15:42] that neither existed on the earth until [15:47] after the human was created. So [15:50] suggesting that it is only referring to [15:52] cultivated plants and then suggesting [15:55] that that's not what's mentioned in [15:57] Genesis 1 ignores the other part of [16:01] Genesis 2:5 gets the Hebrew entirely [16:04] wrong and mistakes the word for [16:06] uncultivated plants as the word for [16:08] cultivated plants and then ignores that [16:10] Genesis 1 actually does use the exact [16:12] same word as for cultivated plants that [16:16] is used in Genesis 2:5. And all of this [16:19] demonstrates conclusively, definitively, [16:22] that this content creator doesn't even [16:24] begin to have the first clue what [16:27] they're talking about. They're just [16:28] performing confidence and conviction and [16:32] condescension without having the first [16:34] clue what they're talking about. The [16:37] fact that he doesn't know that just why [16:39] do you guys consider he's lying to you? [16:42] He's probably one of the most uneducated [16:44] scholars I've ever seen in my entire [16:46] life. So please explain Dan Mlen why [16:48] you're lying to people about Genesis 2. [16:49] It's plant of the field. It's a [16:51] cultivated plant, dude. [16:54] Look at it. So I have demonstrated [16:57] conclusively how you entirely fumbled [17:00] the bag here and got literally [17:02] everything wrong. I would like you to [17:05] explain to your audience that you don't [17:08] really know the Hebrew here and that you [17:11] royally screwed this up. [17:16] And the fit for this video is X-Men [17:18] 2011. ## Highlights - Despite what a lot of apologists will tell you, there's just nothing remotely approximating. >> Yeah, he here's where he continues to lie to you. >> All right, let's see it. >> And Genesis 2 says plants of the field, which are cultivated plants. It's not even the same word in Genesis 1. It's a different type of plant. In Genesis 1, it's grass of the fe grass and vegetation. But these plants of the field in Genesis 2 are cultivated plants. That's why it said there was no man to till the ground. ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01kf93bp2thgch7dr86g57vsdb)) - Tags: 👻 ai highlighted - word does mean cultivated plant. The problem with this content creator's argument is that this word is in Genesis 2:5. As we can see here, we have which means bush, shrub, desert, vegetation of the field, and as means cultivated or edible plants of the field. Genesis 2:5 is kind of like a merorism describing all vegetation on earth from the edible cultivated all the ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01kf93bp3ht33zxfxx98cs2b2r)) - Tags: 👻 ai highlighted - these terms work throughout the Hebrew Bible. It is still just wrong. To recap, Genesis 2:5 mentions both cultivated and uncultivated vegetation, and it says that neither existed on the earth until after the human was created. So suggesting that it is only referring to cultivated plants and then suggesting that that's not what's mentioned in Genesis 1 ignores the other part of ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01kf93bp60hewkbvavfy62wzxx)) - Tags: 👻 ai highlighted ## New Highlights added 2026-02-28 at 7:49 PM - Despite what a lot of apologists will tell you, there's just nothing remotely approximating. >> Yeah, he here's where he continues to lie to you. >> All right, let's see it. >> And Genesis 2 says plants of the field, which are cultivated plants. It's not even the same word in Genesis 1. It's a different type of plant. In Genesis 1, it's grass of the fe grass and vegetation. But these plants of the field in Genesis 2 are cultivated plants. That's why it said there was no man to till the ground. ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01kf93bp2thgch7dr86g57vsdb)) - Tags: 👻 ai highlighted - word does mean cultivated plant. The problem with this content creator's argument is that this word is in Genesis 2:5. As we can see here, we have which means bush, shrub, desert, vegetation of the field, and as means cultivated or edible plants of the field. Genesis 2:5 is kind of like a merorism describing all vegetation on earth from the edible cultivated all the ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01kf93bp3ht33zxfxx98cs2b2r)) - Tags: 👻 ai highlighted - these terms work throughout the Hebrew Bible. It is still just wrong. To recap, Genesis 2:5 mentions both cultivated and uncultivated vegetation, and it says that neither existed on the earth until after the human was created. So suggesting that it is only referring to cultivated plants and then suggesting that that's not what's mentioned in Genesis 1 ignores the other part of ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01kf93bp60hewkbvavfy62wzxx)) - Tags: 👻 ai highlighted