Psalm 47: A Biblical Prayer to the Gods of

[David Bokovoy]

Hello Mark,

For the record:

I believe that Mexican food is the greatest food ever.

I believe that surfing is the greatest sport ever.

I believe that scuba diving is the second greatest sport ever.

I believe that the San Diego Chargers will never win a Super Bowl (but they will forever remain my favorite team).

I believe that Bob Dylan is the greatest song writer to have ever lived.

I believe that the Doors are the greatest rock band of all time.

I believe that one day, FAIR posters, the Dude, Steve, Sidewinder, Dan V. and Brent M. will someday all regain their faith in the Restoration.

And there

[Markk]

Hi Ben,

It cannot mean judges. It does not mean judges in Exodus 21 and Exodus 22. Nowhere in the Old Testament is the word elohim used of judges. It can be used of mortal human beings - but only in the context that those persons become a part of the divine assembly - as Moses did when he spoke with YHWH face to face.

Your just wrong, read the text, when the laws were set forth it is clear that the elohim were the judges in administering judgement per the law. You guys are just reaching here to prove a LDS agenda of polytheism, while TOTALLY ignoring the fact that the Bible is a correction notice to Israel to be Monotheistic and serve the the one and only true God and that all other are non existent.

No, he said that he didn't. I am not sure which of his posts you didn't read. But I thought it was pretty clear.

Sorry, I must have missed it, I get a few minutes a day lately on the net, can you give me a date or a paste?

Should anyone discussing the meaning of a text be required to lay out all of their personal biases? Does it matter whether a person is agnostic, or Catholic, or Southern Baptist, or Mormon, or Islamic, when they are discussing the meaning of Canaanite myth in the Ugaritic texts?

On a site like this it must be qualified, people believe you guys just because, and what you are saying itches the ears of people who need to believe in a polytheistic nature, so again, yes, in this arena. If this is just a myth and is to be separated from the bible and it's context of God teaching them (Israel) that these myths were just that, then say so up front. An it holds you accountable and limits the wiggle room in these discussions, and why not, that's what apologist do, they defend what they believe, so if your going to be creditable, you need to state your personal position on matters discussed.

Take care Ben

Mark

john 1;12

[Smith]

Based upon a recent thread here on the FAIR board, together with the fact that I would actually like to work through my thoughts on this topic, I decided now might be a good time to share with those interested the reason why I believe Psalm 47 is a biblical poem in which the gods of the Divine Council are commanded to praise Yahweh.

Hi David,

Does not the opening of Joshua 22:22 also lend credence to the point that God is a god of Gods too?

[Benjamin McGuire]

Markk writes:

Your just wrong, read the text, when the laws were set forth it is clear that the elohim were the judges in administering judgement per the law. You guys are just reaching here to prove a LDS agenda of polytheism, while TOTALLY ignoring the fact that the Bible is a correction notice to Israel to be Monotheistic and serve the the one and only true God and that all other are non existent.

I am not wrong. This point of view - the one you are espousing here - was abandoned in mainstream biblical scholarship some time ago. This is especially true of particular proof texts - like Psalm 82 - where even Catholic theologians (like John Neyrey) deny the validity of judges as an appropriate translation of elohim. This isn't an LDS agenda. This is what Biblical scholarship as a whole accepts in terms of interpreting the text.

The problem that you have is that Monotheism only becomes normative in later Judaism. It doesn't exist in pre-exilic Israelite religion. Your insistence that it does is, as I pointed out, more a feature of your beliefs about what you think the text ought to be, than about what the text is, or how it was read when it was written. The Evangelical biblical scholar Larry Hurtado called this anti-critical apologetics. And the issue is that you want to force your own theology onto the text, instead of accepting that the view of God could ever possibly change and develop of the course of several millenia. It is one of the reasons why these conversations with you are so frustrating - because you refuse to accept contradictions, even from those scholars of your own belief tradition.

Sorry, I must have missed it, I get a few minutes a day lately on the net, can you give me a date or a paste?

The thread isn't that long yet.

On a site like this it must be qualified, people believe you guys just because, and what you are saying itches the ears of people who need to believe in a polytheistic nature, so again, yes, in this arena. If this is just a myth and is to be separated from the bible and it's context of God teaching them (Israel) that these myths were just that, then say so up front. An it holds you accountable and limits the wiggle room in these discussions, and why not, that's what apologist do, they defend what they believe, so if your going to be creditable, you need to state your personal position on matters discussed.

Nonsense. I quoted, for example, Jeffry Tigay - widely respected as an expert on the Hebrew text of the Bible - and also a practicing Jew. Cyrus Gordon was never LDS. Jerome Neyrey is a practicing Roman Catholic priest. In the paper I linked to earlier I reference Elmer Smick, Lowell Handy, Michael Heiser, Julia Morgenstern, and Theodore Mullen. These aren't LDS people. When I quote Larry Hurtado, do I need to stress his beliefs? When I quote Tigay, do you really need to know that he is Jewish?

I don't think that it matters. People are going to believe me on this site because I am knowledgeable on this topic (whether or not you choose to believe it). I have read nearly everything puplished on this particular topic in the last 50 years. I have read hundreds of articles and books dealing with these issues. I can read biblical Hebrew. So, here you are making a direct charge that I am simply making stuff up to support an ideological position. This is rather odd in and of itself, since LDS theology doesn't accept or agree with any of this - and many LDS have just as much trouble with this approach to the text as you do. Yet, you blatantly suggest here that I somehow have something to gain in making these claims. Yet, does the Jewis Tigay have something to gain? Or the Catholic Neyrey? Or the Evangelicals in my list? It seems to me that you are simply looking for a target here. And I am going to tell you straight up - I am not interested in providing my personal beliefs relative to this discussion because they have absolutely zero relevance. We are discussing what the text means in its original context (that is, how was it understood when it was written). And if you think that this understanding has to match your theological outlook, then I think that we can safely discount anything you think you may have to contribute on the subject - because everything you say will tell us more about you than it will tell us about the text or what the text meant to its writer.

Yes, Israel believed in myths - and yes, those myths were a part of their religion. The Bible record endorses those myths. It teaches those myths. Those myths were believed by Israelites who had the biblical texts to read. To read the Bible without recognizing the beliefs that produced it is to recreate the text into our own image. But the Bible isn't a universal condemnation of these myths. It doesn't teach against them - it actually promotes them. And these same myths are later used in the New Testament as a way to describe Jesus (amongst other things).

So I'll tell you what, would you like me to start producing the scholarly sentiments of the non-LDS experts on which I base much of my opinion? Would you accept this as sufficient evidence without the need to start going after my personal beliefs and personal theology? I think that these questions on your part are nothing more than distraction. And in this case, since I can produce more than sufficient claims made by others, perhaps I should let you argue with them over their personal beliefs and personal theologies - which they also neglected to include in their professional writings.

Ben

[The_Monk]

Your just wrong, read the text, when the laws were set forth it is clear that the elohim were the judges in administering judgement per the law.

Markk, this kind of statement simply doesn't serve your argument very well.

David/Ben: According to Hebrew, in context, according to non-LDS scholars such as Cyrus Gordon, etc.

Markk (in effect says): We don't need scholars. We don't need Hebrew. "Your just wrong," all you have to do is read it in English and it's self-evident.

The first domino to topple the idea of Elohim as judges was Gordon, Cyrus H. "Elohim in it's Reputed Meaning of Rulers, Judges," Journal of Biblical Literature 54 (1935).

Can you refute Gordon's arguments? He was Jewish, fluent in nearly every Semitic language known. Did he simply not understand the Bible? Why wasn't it "clear" to him? Was he secretly arguing "the Mormon position" (whatever that might be) ?

One of the rules of Biblical studies (as laid out by Michael Brown in his handy What They Don't Tell You: A Survivor's Guide to Biblical Studies), is "Don't argue what you can't prove."

In other words, keep faith-statements and faith-interpretations separate and distinct from what you can prove from the texts. And in this case, the scholarly weight is firmly against you, whether Jewish, Christian, or Mormon scholarship. It cannot be demonstrated from the texts that elohim indicated human judges. If you want to argue otherwise (instead of simply believing it), then you need to interact with Gordon's arguments.

[Markk]

Hi Ben,

Define scholarship before we go on, would you consider a John Mac Arthur a scholar.

Exd 21:6 Then his master 0113 shall bring 05066 him unto the judges 0430; he shall also bring 05066 him to the door 01817, or unto the door post 04201; and his master 0113 shall bore 07527 his ear 0241 through with an aul 04836; and he shall serve 05647 him for ever 05769.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Exd 22:8 If the thief 01590 be not 03808 found 04672 , then the master 01167 of the house 01004 shall be brought 07126 unto the judges 0430, [to see] whether he have put 07971 his hand 03027 unto his neighbour's 07453 goods 04399.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Exd 22:9 For all manner 01697 of trespass 06588, [whether it be] for ox 07794, for *** 02543, for sheep 07716, for raiment 08008, [or] for any manner of lost thing 09, which [another] challengeth 0559 to be his, the cause 01697 of both parties 08147 shall come 0935 before the judges 0430; [and] whom the judges 0430 shall condemn 07561 , he shall pay 07999 double 08147 unto his neighbour 07453.

Please read the verses before and after these verses ( sorry for the Strong's numbers) and tell me how these elohim are anything less than man. Give me the scenario of what took place here and who these elohim actually were that would impute these penalties on Israel's wicked. Are you saying that they would go before deities?

I don't think that it matters. People are going to believe me on this site because I am knowledgeable on this topic (whether or not you choose to believe it). I have read nearly everything puplished on this particular topic in the last 50 years.

That's a cop out, don't take offense to this but have you read the bible alone in context, your knowledge seems to be what other men think and write and not what is actually written by the authors themselves. Quoting names does not mean a thing when you ignore the text and context of the word.

You don't have to give your beliefs, but to deny to do so show weakness of position, and again allows you the wiggle room you might need.

If I start quoting "scholars" that disagree with you "scholars" would that prove anything, we can arrive at context by reading the text Ben. You seem to think that the bible does not teach Israel was polytheistic, that men like Abraham (Abram) worshipped these false gods, it tells us that, but it also corrects this and explains in detail who the One true God is and that following other gods, which are false, will not be tolerated and will bring condemnation.

Anyway tell what makes a scholar?

Take care, your friend

Mark

John 1:12

[David Bokovoy]

Hello Mark,

While I would still love to hear Ben

[David Bokovoy]

Hello Smith,

==Does not the opening of Joshua 22:22 also lend credence to the point that God is a god of Gods too?

Thanks for drawing our attention to a very interesting verse.

To be honest, I

[Markk]

Hi David,

If you can't stick to the context, baffle with...cow poop...I'm cracking myself up here. Did you really pay for this kind of teaching?

In context...

Exd 22:7 If a man shall deliver unto his neighbour money or stuff to keep, and it be stolen out of the man's house; if the thief be found, let him pay double.

Exd 22:8 If the thief be not found, then the master of the house shall be brought unto the judges, [to see] whether he have put his hand unto his neighbour's goods.

Read Deut. 17, it explains furthur..

Deu 17:8 If there arise a matter too hard for thee in judgment, between blood and blood, between plea and plea, and between stroke and stroke, [being] matters of controversy within thy gates: then shalt thou arise, and get thee up into the place which the LORD thy God shall choose;

Deu 17:9 And thou shalt come unto the priests the Levites, and unto the judge that shall be in those days, and enquire; and they shall shew thee the sentence of judgment:

The system is in place the law provides for just what would happen in Exodus 8. If what you say is true, and the man was delivered up to God, why even have the Judges fro anything? Your just pushing the LDS agenda here

You guys reference and put up on pedestal allot of men here, saying things like they are Jewish and understand the language, or this and that. Don't dodge this question like most of the time, please answer it.

" Do you believe everything and agree with everything these guys say on the Bible? If I was to quote something that you would disagree with what does that do with thier credibility? Why are you scholars or quotes from them the correct ones?

Love ya

Mark

John 1:12

You said you enjoyed surfing, when Im out there this weekend I'll think of you, then on the way home I'll grab another double double for you. I suck at surfing, but I'm great at In and Out. Im doing a job in North County at Leo Carrillo Ranch, I'm restoring Leo's BBQ, http://www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us/parks/carrill...estoration.html so I'm limited on time here, hope to get into more context this weekend.

[The_Monk]

Your just pushing the LDS agenda here

Again, was Cyrus Gordon "just pushing the LDS agenda"?

[Markk]

Hi dillfest,

I don't know, but I do know that you can find any body to agree with ones point of view, and David and Ben push this for LDS idoelogy. I'm sure I could find areas of theology where these men disagree, and then what?

Please fill free to walk me through the exodus verses as david will not?

Thanks

mark

john 1:12

[David Bokovoy]

==Please fill free to walk me through the exodus verses as david will not?

Easssy there Mark. Contrary to popular opinion, I can

[Benjamin McGuire]

Markk writes:

Define scholarship before we go on, would you consider a John Mac Arthur a scholar.

Well, I'll tell you what - to make it simple, lets say that as far as reading the text goes with consideration of its original context, a scholar would be someone who has an advanced degree in the language and or the historical era of the text's authorship.

John MacArthur is a theologian. The only advanced degree that he earned was a Masters in Divinity.

Please read the verses before and after these verses ( sorry for the Strong's numbers) and tell me how these elohim are anything less than man. Give me the scenario of what took place here and who these elohim actually were that would impute these penalties on Israel's wicked. Are you saying that they would go before deities?

Sure. Hopefully my comments won't overlap Davids very much.

Passage 1:

Exd 21:6 Then his master shall bring him unto the elohim; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever.

Here is the NRSV translation of this same verse (I note that the NRSV is not an LDS translation, nor does its translation committee endorse LDS theology):

then his master shall bring him before God. He shall be brought to the door or the doorpost; and his master shall pierce his ear with an awl; and he shall serve him for life.

Now here is the translation endorsed by the Catholic Church (the NAB - do you think that this is an LDS biased translation?):

his master shall bring him to God and there, at the door or doorpost, he shall pierce his ear with an awl, thus keeping him as his slave forever.

Actually, both of these are also a little off. They represent a bit of a step away from what likely was represented in the text when it was written - although, they also represent the way that the text was read at the time of the Josian reform - when the first real steps were taken towards monotheism. One of the things that we know historically is that images (what we would probably call idols) - called teraphim were used in early Israel. Some of these may have represeted other (believed) divinities than YHWH, but we also know that some of these teraphim were representations of YHWH. Here, for example, is an entry on the topic from the Jewish Encyclopedia:

The nature of the teraphim cult and its gradual decay seem also perfectly clear. It may be noted that teraphim were regarded in early times as representatives of real gods endowed with divine attributes (comp. Gen. xxxi. 30, where Laban, rebu-king Jacob for Rachel's theft of the teraphim, asks, "Wherefore hast thou stolen my gods?"), and that evidently the teraphim cult was practically on a plane with Yhwh worship. In Judges xvii. 5 Micah has "an house of gods" () with a duly appointed priest; he makes an ephod (see below) and teraphim, which were used together with "a graven image" and "a molten image" made from silver dedicated to Yhwh; the figures were evidently Yhwh images. The value of the teraphim to the family and the tribe is shown by the statements that Rachel stole them from her father (Gen. xxxi. 19), and that the Danites, when they went to spy out the land of Laish, took away by force from the house of Micah not only the Yhwh images just mentioned, but also the ephod, the teraphim, and the Levitical priest (see Judges xviii.).

One of the major issues with this particular text deals with the door post. During pre-exilic times, whatever "judges" existed, they would have held their "court" in the predecessor of the synagogue at the gates to the city. (This would not be a door post). The door post refers to a part of the home - the personal dwelling space of the family. (Similar in expression to the putting blood on the door post for passover). Commenting on this subject relative to this verse, Karel van der Toorn wrote in his article: "The Nature of the Biblical Teraphim in the Light of the Cuneiform Evidence" in Catholic Biblical Quarterly (52/2 - Apr 1990):

The passage from Isaiah can be elucidated by comparing it with Exod 21:6. In the latter text, the case of a slave's forgoing his right of manumission is dealt with. His master is to bring his servant 'el ha'elohim, which means, the text explains, that he is to bring him "to the door or to the doorpost." There he shall pierce a hole in the slave's ear, thus marking his definite entry into the household. This text has been much discussed. Especially the meaning and location of ha'elohim ("God" or "the gods"? In the house of the master or in the official sanctuary?) are points of controversy. In my opinion, the parallel legislation in Deut 15:17 ("then you shall take an awl, and thrust it through his ear into the door, and he shall be your bondsman forever") indicates that the ceremony took place at the house of the slave-owner. The deuteronomic text offers a reinterpretation of the old usage, skipping the mention of the religious aspect, and thereby turning it into a purely profane procedure. The most plausible explanation of this change is that the later authors felt uneasy at the presence of divine symbols in an ordinary house. These data favor the assumption that in the early stages of Israelite religion, images or symbols of numinous beings were normally to be found near "the door and doorpost" of the Israelite house. In the Israelite "four-room house," the "door" referred to is presumably the door of the heder (see Isa 26:20: ". . . enter your hadarim and shut your doors behind you").

In view of the secondary function of the heder as household sanctum, it is likely to have been the room where the seraphim were installed. ... Regardless of the specific location of the seraphim, however, the images belonged to the sphere of what may be described as "family devotion" or "domestic piety." In his Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels, J. Wellhausen noticed the predilection of women for the cult of the teraphim.

You will note that "judges" is not even considered as an option for translation - the controversy having left that option behind now is over whether or not "God" is the meaning or "gods" (i.e. images representing God/gods). In my opinion, the best option is that of the teraphim - which would have been removed from even the popular practice of Judaism by the time of the Josian reform and the writing of Deuteronomy. These "gods" were there to witness the covenant made between the slave and his master - and serve as the impetus behind the associated curse of the covenant.

van der Toorn also introduces another possibility in the form of ancestor worship. Which while possible, I believe is also not very likely. (His argument though is based in part on the fact that ilm is found in parallel to mtm in Canaanite texts). In any case, as seen by the translations above, those who have no problems with critical scholarship of the text do not use the translation "judges" here, but instead opt for "gods" or "God".

As a final note, the ritual of piercing the ear may have some correspondence with other ancient near eastern rites - although I don't have ready access to that information at the moment.

Passage 2:

Exd 22:8-9 If the thief be not found, then the master of the house shall be brought unto the judges, [to see] whether he have put his hand unto his neighbour's goods. For all manner of trespass, [whether it be] for ox, for ***, for sheep, for raiment, [or] for any manner of lost thing, which [another] challengeth to be his, the cause of both parties shall come before the judges; [and] whom the judges shall condemn, he shall pay double unto his neighbour.

NAB: If the thief is not caught, the owner of the house shall be brought to God, to swear that he himself did not lay hands on his neighbor's property. In every question of dishonest appropriation, whether it be about an ox, or an ***, or a sheep, or a garment, or anything else that has disappeared, where another claims that the thing is his, both parties shall present their case before God; the one whom God convicts must make twofold restitution to the other.

NRSV: If the thief is not caught, the owner of the house shall be brought before God, to determine whether or not the owner had laid hands on the neighbour

[Markk]

Hi Ben

JM knows reads, writes, and speaks Greek and it was his major, When he studies he writes in down first in the original language then starts from there, so is he a scholar? He has a working knowledge of Hebrew and can read commentaries and papers and quote them as well as you guys do, so why can't he be trusted?

My point is, who cares, I could find in one google search scholars and Jews and what ever that disagree with your views, I do it all the time, it just clouds the threads, I put my hat on the context of the text as a whole while reading others, including LDS and secular works, then attempt to present what I believe and why I believe it, my authority is in the Bible, not mans interpretation, but my interpretation as best as I can do.

Here is a google search...

http://www.hillel.org/Hillel/NewHille.nsf/...97?OpenDocument

Is my Jewish Guy better than yours, what about ...Ibn Ezra on Exodus 21:6

"The judges were called Elohim due to the fact that they enact God's laws on earth." Are your guys more knowledgeable than Ibn Ezra?

I agree with Ezra on this 21:6 and the other translations that rendered it judges in that it fits the context that he was (the bond servant) legally the will full owner of the master, the hole in the ear was the sign and the judges more or less were the notary of the public. Ezra saw this in the 9th century, and fits the context of Exodus and the giving of the law as a whole, in that God gave the law to the Jews to live by and the judges to administer the law.

This is going to take awhile to go through the rest, I have to do some honey do's so I get back later tonight.

take care

Mark

john 1:12

[David Bokovoy]

Hello Mark,

I

[Dunamis]

If you can't stick to the context, baffle with...cow poop...I'm cracking myself up here. Did you really pay for this kind of teaching?

This is insulting and inflammatory in a thread that is very civil.

  Why are you scholars or quotes from them the correct ones?

This lookes like a scholarly discussion. If you do not agree with a scholar it is up to you to provide another scholar. Rudeness is not an appropriate defense.

[Markk]

Hi David,

I guess that is the way your going to get out of addressing context. I guess A. Wyatt can use the words poop all he wants, or others can make fun of my mother here and that's OK, they are Mormons I am not, and I understand, I slipped and should not have use used the four letter word poop. I apologize I should have just said it was hyperbole. To say that JM is not qualified to be called a scholar is showing your bias and ignorance.

B.A., Los Angeles Pacific College

M.Div., Talbot Theological Seminary

Litt.D., Grace Graduate School

D.D., Talbot Theological Seminary

He has written many best selling books and has almost completed the NT commentary set. he is President and I believe founder of the masters college and more. While i certainly do not agree with everything he writes and teaches, if he is not a scholar then no one is.

Would there be any scholar who disagrees with you that i could quote that you would except?

Anyway, my son has shaped me a nice board I use, I get blanks cheap and can get them glassed cheap, my wife works in the industry, kinda, I'll ask her if she knows the Nessy people. But I suck because I'm getting old and it is just to much work now a days, I would rather fish and watch my son.

Tell me this David, when did the Bible start teaching monotheism?

Mark

john 1:12

[William the Conqueror]

As biblical scholar C.J. Labuschagne explains:

[David Bokovoy]

Hello Mark,

==I guess that is the way your going to get out of addressing context

Ummm, I

[David Bokovoy]

Hello William,

As always, its great to hear from you. Thanks for taking an interest in the thread (I hope you've read through most of it, as I think we have some pretty nice observations). I appreciate your excellent question and would like to give it a thorough response. Please check back later tonight.

Best wishes,

David

[David Bokovoy]

Hello William,

==I suppose the question is, were any of these other alleged gods really divine beings?

As Ben and I have established in several recent posts, whether or not biblical authors were correct in their belief that a multiplicity of divine beings governed the universe through a divine council is in no way relevant to the fact that those authors actually believed that these deities existed.

==If your position is correct, then Elijah was not being totally facetious when he said that perhaps Baal was away on a long journey or was possibly sleeping and needed to be awakened.

Though Elijah certainly delivered his speech with considerable sarcasm, we have no textual evidence to suggest that Elijah did not accept the biblical view of henotheism. To the contrary, all evidence suggests that, in fact, he did (see below).

Therefore, I do not believe that Elijah was being totally facetious when he discussed the possibility that Baal was simply sleeping and needed to be awakened.

Consider all of the Psalms of Individual and Communal Lament in which a petitioner expresses the desire for God to awake:

[urroner]

Notice that in I Kings 18:21 Elijah in no way denies Baal

[Markk]

Hi David,

Ummm, I

[David Bokovoy]

Hello Mark,

==No you have not, I have asked to go through the text, Exodus, the verses in sighting the law in context to get the context, you only addressed one verse, 8, which you referred to I believe 7

Even if this is not intentional, I see your desire to focus on a lengthy exploration of the laws in Exodus 21-22 as a serious detraction from the topic of the thread, which is the divine council of deities in the Bible (in Psalm 47 to be specific).

==You have just muddied up the conversation to avoid the context of what the chapters are saying here.

While I may not have provided a lengthy exploration of the Covenant Code, i.e., Ex. 21-22, you have failed to address any of my points regarding the plurality of gods in the Old Testament.

Just to refresh your memory:

1. You have not addressed the fact that your view of the word elohim turns God into an idol maker since Deuteronomy 4: 19 states that God made the celestial bodies that he alloted to the other nations to worship. Remember that Biblical authors associate the sun, moon, and stars with actual deities (see Job 38:4-7)

2. You have not addressed the fact that your view belittles both the Bible and God himself by comparing God

[David Bokovoy]

In hindsight, perhaps I