Lean Not on Your Own Understanding  🔗 **Source:** [Lean Not on Your Own Understanding](https://share.snipd.com/episode/40df1b86-fe9c-4d0a-b6fd-5d462ad0dfaa) ## Highlights - **Why Proverbs 3:5 Is A Conversation Stopper** - Proverbs 3:5 is often used as a thought-stopping cliché to shut down questions about scripture. - Dan McClellan and Dan Beecher explain the verse addresses whether wisdom ultimately comes from Adonai, not a blanket disparagement of intellect. Transcript: Dan Beecher And for today's twisted scripture, we're going to one that was sent in to us by one of our listeners. But it's one that I've actually been seeing out in the wild deployed quite a bit. And this is from Proverbs. Not from Proverbs. Yes, from Proverbs 3, verse 5 and 6. And that's the one. You've probably heard it before. We normally do the NRSVUE, but I'm going to read from the King James Version because that's where I first, that's the language that I got used to that I had heard, which is, Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding. In all your ways, acknowledge him and he shall direct your paths. And, you know, the listener who wrote into us with that wrote in to say, hey, when I, you know, when I used to go to church at the, you know, as I was growing up, anytime I had a question, anytime Something in the Bible didn't seem right or didn't work from how I was seeing the world my pastor would just whip this one out and say I don't get to have an opinion about it and I think that That's a I think that's a fair thing you know I saw on threads just just the other day someone posted a thing about you know they were an atheist because they read the Bible, which has been Known to happen from time to time. Dan McClellan And even Pew has said that atheists know the Bible better than virtually every other religious group. Yeah. In no small part, because atheism is frequently the outcome of seriously taking a look at things. Dan Beecher Yeah. Anyway, one of the responses, multiple people had sort of the similar response, which was just, this happens when you lean on your own understanding, but I read the Bible with the Holy Spirit. So, ha, ha, ha. So I, you know, I just wanted to talk about this idea of kind of stopping the conversation and, and, and the idea that reading, you know, the whole idea of just reading with the Holy Spirit Versus being a dirty, dirty scholar like you. Like moi, yeah. Dan McClellan And I get that all the time. People will just comment that I cannot understand the Bible because you can only understand the Bible adequately if you have the Spirit with you. Right. Which is kind of funny. It strikes me as a kind of special pleading. Oh, it's the definition of special pleading. That they have some kind of special access to an epistemological level that we just cannot achieve. They've leveled up because they have yon spirits with them. And what baffles me is we study this kind of stuff, particularly within psychology of religion, cognitive science of religion, related fields. We study what's going on with this. And even within the Latter-day Saint tradition, you get a lot of this, the burning in the bosom kind of idea and reading under the influence of the Spirit. And it strikes me that, well, one, let's take a look at Proverbs. Did you go through and read it? Yeah. Yes, you went through and read it. And the idea here, a lot of people think this means whatever the Word of God says goes. And that's simply not true because we don't have any access to what God says or what Adonai or the Lord says, independent of our own understanding. Right. Like we have to understand. Whose understanding am I supposed to use then? Yeah. It's not, it's not like a, you know, big hero six where you've got a chip and you can just take out my understanding and plug in God's understanding. Like if by the understanding of the Lord, you mean what's in the Bible, as we've talked about many times on this channel, it has no independent, inherent meaning of its own. Like just the meaning itself is something that we create in with it. And we frequently overrule it. Like, as we've talked many times in the past, there are lots of parts of the Bible that are, you know, non grata now. We don't like those things. We have overruled them. We've come up with rationalizations and with interpretive lenses and hermeneutic maneuvers to decide that we're past it. Slavery is kind of the parade example, the easiest one to go to. Like if we're supposed to lean on the Lord and not onto our own understanding, slavery should be a-okay. Right. But, you know, and I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that countless times abolitionists were told to trust in the Lord and lean not on their own understanding. When they were arguing, this is what we're doing is bad. This is wrong. This is immoral. This is evil. Beyond a shadow of a doubt, they were frequently told to trust in the Lord and lean not on their own understanding. And it's kind of silly. There's a commentary in the Hermeneus series that I really like, and there's a volume on Proverbs, but there's this paragraph that just says, one should not interpret Proverbs 3, 5 As a general disparagement of intellect and understanding. Rather this verse has to do with a fundamental question. Is human insight the point of departure for sapiential reflection or does wisdom ultimately come from Adonai? Proverbs 3.5 is unequivocal here and thus resembles a line of thought that is fully expressed in the critical wisdom of the book of Job and in the book of Kohelet, which would be Ecclesiastes, Which we've talked about in the past, which shows around the time that this dates to. ([Time 0:06:18](https://share.snipd.com/snip/cec2b1fa-d046-4260-9e99-cd085b931f2c)) - **Spiritual Intuitions Are Not Verifiable Evidence** - Claims that 'reading with the Holy Spirit' gives special epistemic access are special pleading and often reflect intuition, not verifiable evidence. - The hosts compare spiritual intuitions to optical illusions and note cognitive science shows intuition is unreliable and identity‑driven. Transcript: Dan Beecher Well, maybe that's the problem, Dan, is that you're using your brain and you're not, you know, there's Matthew 11 and Luke 10 that says, that extols the virtue of things that are hidden From the wise and the intelligent and have been revealed to the infants. So what about that, Dan? Dan McClellan Well, I think here we're talking about, and this is kind of similar to a lot of attempts to suggest that there is that kind of epistemological leveling up is something that only happens Once you step a foot in the dark or something like that. After the leap of faith, the trial of your faith, you will be endowed with this super secret special understanding that nobody else has access to or can measure or can test or scrutinize In any way, shape, or form whatsoever. And really what people are just talking about is their intuitions. Right. They're just talking about their intuitions. Dan Beecher Well, and the way that I demonstrate that or try to with people who start to use this line of reasoning is just to point out that like, yes, you think you're reading using the Holy Spirit. That person over there thinks that they're reading using the Holy Spirit, and you've come to differing conclusions. Yeah, yeah. So either one of you doesn't actually know how to read with the Spirit and is doing it wrong, which I know you're about to say that that's the other guy, but come on. Dan McClellan Yeah. Dan Beecher Or you're just using your own, you're leaning onto your own understanding. That's exactly what you, you have no option, but to do that. Dan McClellan Yeah. There's not really any other way to engage in any kind of cognitive activity. We've talked about how there's a spectrum from intuitive cognition to reflective cognition. And sometimes you can get something from your intuitive cognition where you're like, where did that come from? And that is frequently held up as, oh, that's the spirit. I was given this. This is a revelation from God. It's your intuitions. It's the same thing that is responsible for optical illusions and for the way cartoons work. It is your brain doing its default settings. And because so many of our intuitions are rooted in our identity politics and the worldviews that we have become accustomed to and have been conditioned to, that they confirm a lot of The features of our identity politics and our worldview is not God telling you it's true. It's just your intuitions doing intuition things. Dan Beecher And that's not to say that intuition is bad. Like our intuition is vital to how we live our lives. We have to operate on some level using our intuitions. It's not the only thing we should be using. Right. Dan McClellan Obviously, we need to bring our reflective cognition into play frequently. And when there's conflict, frequently the reflective cognition overrules the intuitive cognition. And that helps us to better understand ourselves, the world around us and our place within it. Our intuitions are really there to help us survive long enough to mate. And and people will I see this a lot where particularly among creationists and people who are arguing against evolution, they'll be like, well, materialism, if you're a materialist, If you believe in evolution, then you believe that our brain is unreliable. Yeah. And don't you want something that's reliable? It's like, well, we can't step outside of our unreliable brain and somehow still access knowledge. Like our brain is the only way we can get to anything. And yes, it is absolutely unreliable. Dan Beecher Anyone who has observed their brain for in any honest way will recognize there have been moments of unreliability from every brain. Dan McClellan Yeah. And this is going back to the optical illusions. Like we can demonstrate beyond, like demonstrably, this is very clearly not the image that your brain is telling you you're looking at. Right. And it's because your brain is unreliable. Able to figure out many of the different ways that our minds are set up and the way they assume the world around them is functioning and is not isometric with the actual world around us, But it is good enough for us to do the things that we need to do to survive. Human language is the same way. This is why people misunderstand each other all the time. It's because human language is not intended to most accurately communicate, transfer information from one mind to another. Human language is primarily intended to. The foundation of human language is the forming and the nurturing and the curating of social bonds. And so we can do that adequately. And then there are a lot of ways that human language is not perfect, not isometric with whatever is going on in our head. And so I'm baffled by the notion that something that is only accessible to us through our human cognition is somehow transcending human cognition. ([Time 0:12:49](https://share.snipd.com/snip/5e6e8f94-2e30-4698-a827-6409e6147241)) - **Lennox's Ferrari And The Dragon In The Garage** - Dan McClellan recounts John Lennox's red Ferrari analogy where belief is framed as a private test you must choose to pass. - He likens it to Carl Sagan's invisible dragon: unfalsifiable claims that dodge requests for evidence. Transcript: Dan McClellan And Lennox gave this analogy. He was like, imagine I tell you there's a red Ferrari parked outside, it's just for you. You just have to go get in it. We can sit on the couch and argue about it all night long and you will not know whether or not it's out there. You just have to get up and go look. And the idea is once you actually sincerely commit to trying to find out, you're going to find out that it's true. But this is an acquisition of knowledge that is only accessible if you actually sincerely try to believe. And when I heard this, it reminded me of this thing from Carl Sagan's, I think it's from his Demon Haunted World. It talks about the dragon in my garage. And the dragon in my garage is another analogy. He says, imagine I tell you I've got a dragon in my garage. You want to see it? Sure. Okay, we get into the garage. I don't see a dragon. That's because it's invisible. Well, I don't feel it anywhere. I can feel all the space in the garage. There's no dragon. Well, it's also immaterial. Okay, does it make any noise? No, it doesn't make any noise. And the point is when it comes to ideas about God and things like that, it's always unverifiable, unfalsifiable. Every question is sidestepped. We're not providing evidence. We're telling you why you don't get to have any evidence. And, you know, the biggest problem is this is unverifiable, unfalsifiable. And in my opinion, what Lennox is talking about is the exact same thing. And fundamentally, the claim is you don't get to know it's true until you choose to believe. ([Time 0:21:15](https://share.snipd.com/snip/84659ee5-8e45-4c04-aeef-c6fe735dc71a)) - **Why 'Choose To Believe' Makes Claims Unfalsifiable** - Apologists who say evidence appears only after you choose belief make their claims unfalsifiable and immunize them from criticism. - The hosts note this pattern dismisses dissent by redefining failure to find evidence as 'not having tried sincerely.' Transcript: Dan McClellan You didn't really do it. You didn't really look for the Ferrari. Yeah. If you did, you would have found it. Yeah. And what's that doing? It's doing the exact same thing. Oh, the dragon's invisible. Yeah. Absolutely. And I have had people tell me, oh, you don't know Lennox would say that. If you said you sincerely looked and it wasn't there, he would acknowledge that. And I was like, that would make him one of the worst apologists I have ever heard of. Dan Beecher He can't acknowledge that because otherwise his whole thing doesn't work. Dan McClellan It falls to the ground. It falls to pieces. And he's a smarter man than that. However, it does mean that he's doing the same thing. I got a dragon in my garage and you don't get to believe it's true. You don't get the evidence until you choose to believe it's true. And that's when we get back to the intuitions. And that's when we get back to, I feel it's true because I'm getting this collective effervescence of truthiness that is really just my intuitions being tickled by my membership in This community. And now I have this new thing that is good, this worldview that makes me feel good about myself, makes me feel good about the future, makes me feel good about questions I have not had answers To. And that striking the tuning fork in the loins of your dogmatism or your identity politics is precisely what Lennox is imagining is this magical evidence that only manifests itself Once you have chosen to believe. ([Time 0:23:21](https://share.snipd.com/snip/83acbb9b-52a5-41b4-808a-c3ba6a0c83de)) - **Insist On Evidence When Beliefs Affect Others** - Don't let 'read with the Holy Spirit' be used to end debates; demand critical methods and evidence when claims affect public life. - Dan McClellan urges using scholarship, translations, and critical thinking before exporting beliefs publicly. Transcript: Dan McClellan I don't need no scholar to understand the Bible. You would not understand a single letter of the Bible if it were not scholars who went before you and did all this work, used their brains, used critical thinking to help you understand What's going on in the Bible. Just translating it is something that requires scholarship and requires critical thought. Dan Beecher How's your ancient Hebrew? Yeah. Because otherwise you got nothing. Dan McClellan Yeah. So, yeah, I agree with you when, when people try to pull that out as a thought stopping cliche, Ooh boy, that gets my hackles up because, uh, I'm just going to remind everyone Dan's the Dan Beecher Believer. I'm the not believer. In case it was unclear. Dan McClellan They might've gotten it confused, uh, during this segment because, get this a lot too, but people are like, you criticize people for beliefs. No, I criticize people for harmful beliefs. I don't care what you believe on your own. If you want to go into your house or into a place of worship and believe things that make you feel good, blast off, man. I am not going to stop you because you know what? I do the same. Yeah. But once you get on social media, once you start getting into legislatures, once you start affecting how other people are living their lives, once you start spreading misinformation Or these claims publicly, you're in my house. And as much as I am a person of faith privately, when it comes to what's going on publicly, I have very, very different feelings about things and about what is in bounds and what is out of Bounds. So that's the biggest distinction. When people imagine that I am putting every last thing that I believe onto social media, nine. That's not accurate. But yeah, I think we can be adults about this. We can talk about this like adults using critical thinking, using proper methodologies, using the evidence that is available to us. ([Time 0:32:33](https://share.snipd.com/snip/9a799974-788a-427b-856f-2abb1a10fea8)) - **Hebrew Letters Index Sounds Not Whole Ideas** - Ancient Hebrew letters originated as pictographs but in the Hebrew alphabet function acrophonically to index sounds, not full concepts. - The hosts say modern mystical readings that assign complex meanings to letters misunderstand script evolution and function. Transcript: Dan McClellan Last time on. We'll go. You cannot skip the recap this time. Well, I guess you could. But anyway, so Hebrew has what's called an acrophonic script. Now, and what that means is beginning sound. It comes from ideographic scripts or script where the characters actually communicated or indexed entire ideas and concepts and words and things like that. Now, it came from that script. It does not preserve the features of that script. Once it becomes an acrophonic script, then the character just indexes or represents the sound that used to start the word that the character represented. So, for instance, bite. That means buh in Hebrew. That's all. Buh. Now, it came from a character that meant bite, which meant house. Okay. But it does not contain, it does not index the entire concept of house. Now, the problem with folks who argue that the Christian gospel is in the first word of the Bible is that they're not actually basing their understanding on the characters these things Actually came from. Right. Because like shin does not mean to destroy. And tav does not mean covenant. Okay. Or the cross, like a crucifix or anything like that. They had very different meanings. And so the folks who argue that, one, they're totally misunderstanding how Hebrew worked. ([Time 0:41:18](https://share.snipd.com/snip/827ad189-466b-4ebf-bea4-dd89e77ee96d)) - **Aleph Tav Is A Grammatical Marker Not A Messianic Signature** - The Hebrew particle 'et' (Aleph‑Tav) marks definite direct objects and sometimes means 'with'; it is not a hidden messianic code. - Dan McClellan explains 'et' is untranslated in English and appears frequently, so claims it secretly names Jesus are baseless. Transcript: Dan Beecher Where this is. First and last letters. That's your alpha and omega right there, baby. Dan McClellan Yeah. First and last. Yeah. So Aleph Tav is, there are two different words in he, there are actually a few different words, but the two main ones that occur the most that are spelled Aleph and Tav are one, what's called The definite direct object marker, which is a syntactical particle that is not translated into English. You basically put that before the direct object of a verb. You don't have to, but you can if you need to clarify. Because in Hebrew, in English, we use word order to determine what's the subject, what's the object, and things like that. In case-based languages, you would use cases. So you would decline a Latin word differently if it is in the nominative versus the accusative. In Hebrew, Hebrew used to have cases. There are some vestiges of the case system. But in order to indicate the direct object, you have et. And that goes right before the word. And then et can also be a preposition that means with. Okay. However. So et is spelled Aleph-Tav. It's spelled Aleph-Tav. And so because you don't translate the direct object marker, it's secret. Dan Beecher It's hidden. It's a word. Okay. So what you're saying is if you're looking at it in the Hebrew and you're looking at it in the English, there's this one word that doesn't get translated. It's just hiding in the Hebrew, and it's not in the English translations, and therefore something's being hidden from us. Dan McClellan Yes, and what is it? It's the first and the last, the Alpha and the Omega. It is Jesus Christ. Dan Beecher And so, yeah. So, just, so Jesus is, is sprinkled as, as this Aleph Tav formation throughout the Bible. Yeah. Dan McClellan And, and a heavy sprinkling, like they didn't open up the, the, the side with all the little holes. They opened up the side that had the spoon on it and just dumped. Yeah, because there's a lot of direct objects. Well, yeah, you have two of them just in the very first verse of the Bible. So Genesis 1.1, And so you've got two ets there. ([Time 0:53:30](https://share.snipd.com/snip/12a123f4-4766-49e8-84dd-ef4351a955c8)) - **Et Sefer Claims Reveal Poor Hebrew Methodology** - The Et Sefer movement mistransliterates names, overuses Strong's concordance, and misunderstands Hebrew grammar. - McClellan warns their preface leans on Strong's, which is outdated and not a substitute for modern lexica or training. Transcript: Dan McClellan And it was put together by people who did not know Hebrew. But what they did, their two main things is one, they want to have the Hebrew Aleph and Tav there where there's a direct object marker so that you can see where the Alpha and the Omega is, Because you got to read it in Hebrew. And so if you go look at Genesis 1.1, they do that. In the beginning, Elohim, they also want to transliterate all of the names exactly as they imagined they were pronounced in Hebrew. And this is another thing they get horribly wrong. The Tetragrammaton, they transliterate as Yahuwah. Dan Beecher I've seen, I've seen videos of people saying Yahuwah, which just sounds like, uh, it's, it sounds like they're Marines. Dan McClellan Al Pacino from, from that one, uh, from send of a woman. Yeah. I thought you were going to say she's got a great ass. But I don't think that's, you can't get there from the Tetragrammaton. But, and then they also, they don't translate spirit. They transliterate Ruach. And then Jesus is not Yeshua. And it's certainly not Jesus. They're obviously not transliterating Greek. Reverting back to Yahusha. That's what they think Jesus' name was pronounced as. And by the way, try to tell me the etymology of Yahuwah. Because if you think it was pronounced Yahuwah, you just don't know Hebrew and obviously cannot even begin to pretend you know the etymology. Anyway, that's neither here nor there. But this is a, there are movements that like doing this Hebrew roots movement. There's some Messianic Jewish things that do this. But if you get a copy of the Et Sefer Bible, it's going to talk in the preface about why they're doing these things. Not so much why um but they're going to talk about the fact that they're doing these things right uh but they they go to like brown driver and briggs uh brown driver briggs tells us that This word uh and then they'll they'll transliterate and then they'll then they'll give you the strong's number what is the official position of the data over dogma podcast on appeals To strong's dan I don't know if it is our official position, but I'm— I think you're allowed to make certain—certain official positions can't come from me, so I'm going to defer to you Dan Beecher On this. But Strong's—Strings is bad, okay? Dan McClellan Yeah, basically, if your argument retreats to Strong's, you definitely don't know Hebrew, and the preface retreats repeatedly to Strong's. Strong's tells us that Kodesh, H6944, is from H6942, Kadash, and means a sacred place or thing. Again, if you're appealing to Strong's, that means you don't have access to a resource that was published this century. Right. And so it means that you do not have formal training and you do not know Hebrew. I should be clear. Dan Beecher I made a joke about it being bad. It's not that it's bad. It's that it's out of date and that there is better work. Dan McClellan Well, yeah. And the main thing is that it's, when you said Strong's is bad, my understanding, and hopefully everybody else's understanding is that what he means is appealing to Strong's is bad Because it's a concordance and a concordance has a specific utility. And if you know how to use a concordance, Strong's is perfectly fine. It's not a lexicon, and it's not actually telling you what these words mean. Overwhelmingly, Strong's Dictionary, it's just telling you how the King James Version or some other translation translated this word. Right. And it's giving you a gloss based on a specific translation. It's not telling you, hey, by the way, if it occurs with this preposition, or if it occurs with this as the subject, or if it occurs with this as the object, then it means this. It's not really giving you a clear idea of what's, if you're looking at a verb, if it's in the heat pile, what does that mean? And how is it different if it's in the hifil? And, you know, the people who are responsible for the Etzephah Bible, I don't think know what those words mean. ([Time 0:56:14](https://share.snipd.com/snip/3498394e-af14-438d-ac4c-5c4f5e24950d)) - **Call Letter Codes Fiction Unless Method Is Transparent** - Treat Bible‑code style letter-play as entertainment unless authors demonstrate solid philology and transparent methods. - Dan Beecher and Dan McClellan advise creators to admit invention instead of claiming hidden revelations. Transcript: Dan Beecher And that's hiding the Alpha and the Omega and the and your very first word of your bible yeah yeah and it's you know i i can see why that again i get why this feels compelling i get why this Feels cool because it feels like secret knowledge it feels it's da vinci code stuff right like this is what we're dealing with is someone who is is an idea you know there's the there was The bible code that was that came out a while back where yep they just had a computer sort of look at all of the words in the bible and then cross-reference them in a way that we think we can Make and then you know if you if you look at it just just the right way then it's it says it predicts Kennedy's assassination and Nostradamus or something. Like, it's just, it feels cool. Like, that's kind of neat. It's just, they made it up. Dan McClellan Yeah, it's, there are a lot of people out there who recognize that there are a lot of systems of power that try to gatekeep all kinds of knowledge. And it would be nice to feel like, I'm not a part of your system. I know better. And these are the little saccharine ways to try to get people to feel like they know better. Dan Beecher Well, Dan, as a fun experiment, I decided with the help of a friend of mine named Chad GPT. Chad Gupta? Yeah, something like that. I developed my own alphabetical uh deciphering tool okay and now i know how english actually works uh because i now know what each of the letters of english actually means oh really and I have the ability now to discern what they mean so for instance the english alphabet is based on the Semitic alphabet. Exactly. Yeah. But I, but I, I have, uh, basically I, it, I just associated a bunch of, uh, words with letters, with the letters based on a spiritual understanding and how they looked, because obviously How they look is important. So, know, A is for ascent because it looks kind of like a mountain or a ladder pointing upward. I can dig it. I can see that. Yeah. B is breath. It's like lungs. It's like this double sort of humped thing is like lungs. Dan McClellan I have a – there could be other double humped things that are by the lungs. B is for butt. That's the other possibility. That's actually not the thing I was thinking of. Oh, okay. Well, or boobs or whatever, whatever, whatever your pervy brain has decided on. Dan Beecher Well, yeah. Have you just, have you just outed me as, as a boob man? I guess so. I guess so. I do, I do like that what came up with. So the word Bible is breath plus incarnation plus breath plus law plus extension, which means the breath made flesh, breathed again and again into law and extended outward, extended The law to us. Nice. So that's really amazing. Yeah. And now I can. That kind of thing can't be faked. Dan McClellan You can't fake it. That's not a coincidence. No. Dan Beecher Also, if you look at the word data, that's a door. The door ascends a tree. So A is ascent. T is tree. So data is, you know, the door of ascension leads to the tree of higher ascension. So data sends us up. What's amazing about this, and then I did dogma, but I wanted it to be a negative idea of dogma. So then you can say that like dogma is bad. The, you know, like the, the, the door of gathered mystery as against Ascension sort of thing. But what that pointed out to me is. So that's Peter Thiel, right? Right. Exactly. I can play this game with their stuff too yeah so i can take bait is house and rish is head or leader or person and aleph is strength or god or authority and shin is destroy and blah blah blah And i can make that mean a house you know ruled by the head of power where destruction is worked by hand under the sign of sacred authority or, you know, or, you know, bare sheets is a house Controlled by leaders who claim divine authority consume and mark their own violence a covenant. Dan McClellan Yeah. Or you could just say, does the bear a sheet in the woods? Affirmative. Okay. All right. Dan Beecher How did I not see it coming? That's what I want to know. It was right there the whole time, Dan. Dan McClellan It's been hanging. That can't be a coincidence. You think this is a coincidence? Dan Beecher Like the low-hanging fruit in Eden. I did not see it. Somebody's got to pick that fruit. You partook of it, and now we are all damned. Dan McClellan That is the original sin. Dan Beecher All right. Well, there you have it. If you like fun codes go out and make some but just don't claim that they're real because people will believe you and then there then you have a whole it just turns into a whole thing yeah Dan McClellan And and when you wink and say this is for entertainment purposes only on your video just mean it just just it. Yeah. It's not, you're not trying to get away with some plausible deniability. Just mean it. Have fun with it if you want, but. Yeah. Dan Beecher But actually cop to it being nonsense. ([Time 1:01:56](https://share.snipd.com/snip/e10479f8-e3b3-4368-8d90-e3d69a963397))