Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

David Bokovoy

The Biblical Gods:

Recommended Posts

HI EA,

My only proof comes from the scholarship of others, specifically Frank Moore Cross and Mark S. Smith especially his book, The Early History of God. I agree with David these are not extreme ideas but fairly mainstream among current scholarship. I would imagine the only dissidents would be more conservative academics.

So that makes it generally understood? Two guys think so in their books? What is the proof they offer up?

More the reason to believe that they were worshipped. The fact that they were warned not to do something is evidence that they did just that. Prior to the 8th century multiple worship was the norm.

You don't know that and your not reading what i'm saying here, the Bible from the beginng to end is correction notice to worship and believe in the one true living God. No one is arguing that they were not worshipped, it says they were worshipped, but the Word corrects this false worship.

How do you see this?

Do a study, names like El, El Shaddi, Yah, all adopted names of pagan gods with specific "powers' assimulated into the name of the true and living God, YHWH.

You are certainly correct, but one, the references were more than likely edited by the legalist Deuteronomists and secondly, the very fact that the prophets of Israel proffered reforms to rid the nation of asherah makes it ever so much more likely of its widespread worship.

Thats a bold statement, that would mean they would have rewritten the theme of the OT . Thats just not true nor have you offerd one shred of proof. There was wide spread worship and it was corrected to those who wuld listen, such as Judah.

"

Seest thou not what they do in the cities of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem? The children gather wood, and the fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead their dough, to make cakes to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto other gods, that they may provoke me to anger."

Share this post


Link to post
Absolutely, the question is to turn away from what? The worship of false god which was widespread. The ancient Israelite worshipped gods other than the true one, false ones to be sure, but still gods. The prophets after the 8th century represented a departure from the norm not representative of it.

"Seest thou not what they do in the cities of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem? The children gather wood, and the fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead their dough, to make cakes to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto other gods, that they may provoke me to anger."

Share this post


Link to post
"Man has become as one of us...."

First I'll start out by saying what it does not mean. It does not mean that man became more like God in strict nature because he sinned. Man did not become anything else that he was not, aside from being sinful. Obviously man did not take on any attributes that only God can have, all knowing, ever present, all powerful...etc.

One of the godly attributes man did not have was in knowing good from evil. When his eyes were opened, he understood. Then man became "as one of us, knowing good from evil."

I believe the "Us" refers to the tribune nature of God. I have also heard it taught that it could be God and the angels, who also know good from evil and have free will, which is evident from the rebellion. Who do you believe the Us are?

I assume you mean triune nature of God. If so, I agree in a broad sense, but would include the council now being discussed. In our Book of Abraham, we get a good preview of the "heavenly council" that would prove to be part of an entire genre among apocraphal writings:

Abraham 3: 21 I dwell in the midst of them all; I now, therefore, have come down unto thee to declare unto thee the works which my hands have made, wherein my wisdom excelleth them all, for I rule in the heavens above, and in the earth beneath, in all wisdom and prudence, over all the intelligences thine eyes have seen from the beginning; I came down in the beginning in the midst of all the intelligences thou hast seen.

22 Now the Lord had shown unto me, Abraham, the intelligences that were organized before the world was; and among all these there were many of the noble and great ones;

23 And God saw these souls that they were good, and he stood in the midst of them, and he said: These I will make my rulers; for he stood among those that were spirits, and he saw that they were good; and he said unto me: Abraham, thou art one of them; thou wast chosen before thou wast born.

24 And there stood one among them that was like unto God, and he said unto those who were with him: We will go down, for there is space there, and we will take of these materials, and we will make an earth whereon these may dwell;

25 And we will prove them herewith, to see if they will do all things whatsoever the Lord their God shall command them;

26 And they who keep their first estate shall be added upon; and they who keep not their first estate shall not have glory in the same kingdom with those who keep their first estate; and they who keep their second estate shall have glory added upon their heads for ever and ever.

27 And the Lord said: Whom shall I send? And one answered like unto the Son of Man: Here am I, send me. And another answered and said: Here am I, send me. And the Lord said: I will send the first.

28 And the second was angry, and kept not his first estate; and, at that day, many followed after him.

Abraham 4:1 AND then the Lord said: Let us go down. And they went down at the beginning, and they, that is the Gods, organized and formed the heavens and the earth.

Thus, the term "gods" need not be beings like God is now, but rather, holy beings engaged in God's work and thus are "one" with God.

Share this post


Link to post
HI EA,
My only proof comes from the scholarship of others, specifically Frank Moore Cross and Mark S. Smith especially his book, The Early History of God. I agree with David these are not extreme ideas but fairly mainstream among current scholarship. I would imagine the only dissidents would be more conservative academics.

So that makes it generally understood? Two guys think so in their books? What is the proof they offer up?

Markky, Markky, Markky (long sigh).

These two guys are just two of a long series of prominent Biblical scholars that agree on this. Why should we give consideration to their words? Because they have paid the dues to know the Bible better than all of us on this list combined. Cross is known as the Biblical expert who has taught the rest of the Biblical scholarly world how to date ancient writings from their written style.

William Dever is also well known, and respected. He wrote a book last year on God's wife, Asherah. For years, Biblical Archaeological Review has had articles on Yahweh's Asherah, showing ancient altars, etc., showing them. There is even an ancient inscription that says, "Yahweh and his Asherah..."

Denying the strong evidences that are out there, simply because you have refused to read and consider the evidences, does not make these things wrong. I've studied Cross, Dever and others' writings for decades. How long have you been a Biblical scholar? If you want me to believe your points, you'll have to do more than diss such scholars on your own authority (or lack thereof).

Friedman and others have shown the Documentary Hypothesis is a very workable theory on the later interpolations added to the Bible. Friedman is rather convincing in showing there to be two separate versions of the Flood story combined into one. Or the two stories of Moses at Meribah getting water out of a rock - each with its own political connotations. Margaret Barker, who is not LDS, has shown that the early temple (pre-Josian reforms) had a Tree of Life and Asherah worship.

You can deny it all day long. Let's see evidence refuting these.

Instead of us showing these "two guys" proofs, why don't you read a little. Several articles here at FAIR use the evidences they bring up, etc.

Share this post


Link to post

Hello Markk,

So that makes it generally understood?  Two guys think so in their books? What is the proof they offer up?

Two guys!? Yeah, I found them behind some dumpster. I have to agree with the other posters here that while they may be just "two guys", they are two guys with very respectable credentials. Certainly, they represent just a fraction of the iceburg out there, all of whom agree that ancient biblical thought was polytheistic. While we are on the subject can you suggest some scholars that offer a diverse viewpoint?

More the reason to believe that they were worshipped. The fact that they were warned not to do something is evidence that they did just that. Prior to the 8th century multiple worship was the norm.

You don't know that and your not reading what i'm saying here, the Bible from the beginng to end is correction notice to worship and believe in the one true living God. No one is arguing that they were not worshipped, it says they were worshipped, but the Word corrects this false worship.

I thought the primary argument here was to show that ancient Israelites did worship pagan dieties. Whether corrected or not they sure did take awhile to come to that.

Do a study, names like El, El Shaddi, Yah, all adopted names of pagan gods with specific "powers'  assimulated into the name of the true and living God, YHWH.

Yes, but before this assimilation occurred these dieties were worshipped seperately. How else can you explain the archaeological record which show otherwise?

You are certainly correct, but one, the references were more than likely edited by the legalist Deuteronomists and secondly, the very fact that the prophets of Israel proffered reforms to rid the nation of asherah makes it ever so much more likely of its widespread worship.

Thats a bold statement, that would mean they would have rewritten the theme of the OT . Thats just not true nor have you offerd one shred of proof. There was wide spread worship and it was corrected to those who wuld listen, such as Judah.

Not bold at all. I hope you don't have us believe that the OT was written without any redaction, do you? There has been too much written that speaks to the contrary. Just because we have a book today doesn't mean it wasn't added to, alterered, and taken away from by different religious camps.

How did the LDS church get the names of the Gods they worship, Elohim and Jehovah?

To me they are only names and somewhat ambiguous ones at that. Jehovah is a German pronunciation of YHWH and Elohim refers to so many dieties and semi-dieties, including dead people (Not a Mormon teaching, but a Jewish one.)

Share this post


Link to post

Hi EA,

Two guys!? Yeah, I found them behind some dumpster. I have to agree with the other posters here that while they may be just "two guys", they are two guys with very respectable credentials. Certainly, they represent just a fraction of the iceburg out there, all of whom agree that ancient biblical thought was polytheistic. While we are on the subject can you suggest some scholars that offer a diverse viewpoint?

Your being facetious, I'm just asking for the evidence, then we can discuss it.

I thought the primary argument here was to show that ancient Israelites did worship pagan dieties. Whether corrected or not they sure did take awhile to come to that.

Whether corrected or not? That's my point, you are starting to get it, there is no doubt many worshipped false gods, the Bible makes that clear, but by just saying that the parts that prove your theory wrong were changed, with out offering evidences is not a very strong argument for the text it's self.

Yes, but before this assimilation occurred these deities were worshipped seperately. How else can you explain the archaeological record which show otherwise?

What record, we have tons of evidence, household gods galores, which the Bible tells Israel to turn from. What evidence do you present that null and voids this fact?

Not bold at all. I hope you don't have us believe that the OT was written without any redaction, do you? There has been too much written that speaks to the contrary. Just because we have a book today doesn't mean it wasn't added to, altered, and taken away from by different religious camps.

I am open, give me some evidences and we can look at then, just because you say so is not evidence. Why/how was Gen. 17 changed? You said it was, what evidence is there for that.

To me they are only names and somewhat ambiguous ones at that. Jehovah is a German pronunciation of YHWH and Elohim refers to so many deities and semi-dieties, including dead people (Not a Mormon teaching, but a Jewish one.)

That is not LDS theology, they are specific names as you know, how did these names come to be?

Mark

John 1:12

Got to go, I'll answer you later CS

Share this post


Link to post
Your being facetious, I'm just asking for the evidence, then we can discuss it.

You're right...I am being factious, but I am somewhat serious. I can list an entire bibliography of notable and distinguished scholars who back up their opinions with evidence, but would you accept it. We have mentioned Cross, Smith, Dever et al, and you haven't accepted their views. Can you name just a few scholars that would disagree. Even Saul M. Olyan, who disagrees with many mainstream scholars agrees with the statement that Israel accepted false gods both as a major belief and as cultic figures up to the 8th century.

I thought the primary argument here was to show that ancient Israelites did worship pagan deities. Whether corrected or not they sure did take awhile to come to that.

Whether corrected or not? That's my point, you are starting to get it, there is no doubt many worshipped false gods, the Bible makes that clear, but by just saying that the parts that prove your theory wrong were changed, with out offering evidences is not a very strong argument for the text it's self.

I'm sorry, but I don't get your argument then. If you agree that they did worship false gods then what is the problem? My problem is with the latter part of your sentence...

Yes, but before this assimilation occurred these deities were worshipped separately. How else can you explain the archaeological record which show otherwise?

What record, we have tons of evidence, household gods galores, which the Bible tells Israel to turn from. What evidence do you present that null and voids this fact?

My argument is that pre-8th century Israel accepted these gods part and parcel. There weren't any prohibitions until after the 8th century. That is why reformist prophets, such as Isaiah and Jeremiah, had so much difficulty. Remember, even these great prophets were rejected along with their prohibitions against false worship.

I am open, give me some evidences and we can look at then, just because you say so is not evidence. Why/how was Gen. 17 changed? You said it was, what evidence is there for that.

Again, we are arguing the scholar game. I am aware that many fundamentalists do not accept OT redaction, but the overall consensus is that many accept the documentary hypothesis

* Allis, Oswald T. The Five Books of Moses, Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., Phillipsburg, New Jersey, USA, 1949, pages 17 and 22.

* Archer, Gleason. A Survey of Old Testament Introduction. Chicago: Moody, 1994.

* Blenkinsopp, Joseph The Pentateuch, Doubleday, NY, USA 1992.

* Bloom, Harold and Rosenberg, David The Book of J, Random House, NY, USA 1990. ISBN 0802141919.

* Campbell, Joseph "Gods and Heroes of the Levant:1500-500 B.C." The Masks of God 3: Occidental Mythology, Penguin Books, NY, USA, 1964.

* Cassuto, Umberto. The Documentary Hypothesis and the Composition of the Pentateuch, Magnes, 1961. ISBN 9652234796.

* Cassuto, Umberto. The Documentary Hypothesis (Contemporary Jewish Thought), Shalem, 2006. ISBN 9657052351.

* Clines, David J. A. The Theme of the Pentateuch. JSOTSup. 10. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1978.

* Dever, William G. What Did The Biblical Writers Know & When Did They Know It? William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids, MI, USA, 2001.

* Finkelstein, I. and Silberman, N. A. The Bible Unearthed, Simon and Schuster, NY, USA, 2001.

* Fox, Robin Lane, "The Unauthorized Version." A classics scholar offers a measured view for the layman.

* Friedman, Richard E. Who Wrote The Bible?, Harper and Row, NY, USA, 1987. ISBN 0060630353. This work does not constitute a standard reference for the Documentary Hypothesis, as Friedman in part describes his own theory of the origin of one of the sources. Rather, it offers an excellent introduction for the layman.

* Friedman, Richard E. The Hidden Book in the Bible, HarperSan Francisco, NY, USA, 1998.

* Friedman, Richard E. The Bible with Sources Revealed, HarperSanFrancisco, 2003. ISBN 0060530693.

* Garrett, Duane A. Rethinking Genesis: The Sources and Authorship of the First Book of the Bible, Mentor, 2003. ISBN 1857925769.

* Kaufmann, Yehezkel, Greenberg, Moishe (translator) The Religion of Israel, from Its Beginnings to the Babylonian Exile, University of Chicago Press, 1960.

* Larue, Gerald A. Old Testament Life and Literature, Allyn & Bacon, Inc, Boston, MA, USA 1968

* McDowell, Josh More Evidence That Demands a Verdict: Historical Evidences for the Christian Scriptures, Here's Life Publishers, Inc. 1981, p. 45.

* McDowell, Josh The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict, Thomas Nelson Inc.,Publishers. 1999, pages: 411, 528.

* Mendenhall, George E. The Tenth Generation: The Origins of the Biblical Tradition, The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1973.

* Mendenhall, George E. Ancient Israel's Faith and History: An Introduction to the Bible in Context, Westminster John Knox Press, 2001.

* Nicholson, E. The Pentateuch in the Twentieth Century: The Legacy of Julius Wellhausen, Oxford University Press, 2003.

* Rogerson, J. Old Testament Criticism in the Nineteenth Century: England and Germany, SPCK/Fortress, 1985.

* Spinoza, Benedict de A Theologico-Political Treatise Dover, NY, USA, 1951, Chapter 8.

* Tigay, Jeffrey H. "An Empirical Basis for the Documentary Hypothesis" Journal of Biblical Literature Vol.94, No.3 Sept. 1975, pages 329-342.

* Tigay, Jeffrey, Ed. Empirical Models for Biblical Criticism University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, PA, USA 1986

* Van Seters, John. Abraham in History and Tradition Yale University Press, 1975.

* Van Seters, John. In Search of History: Historiography in the Ancient World and the Origins of Biblical History Yale University Press, 1983.

* Van Seters, John. Prologue to History: The Yahwist as Historian in Genesis Westminster/John Knox, 1992.

* Van Seters, John. The Life of Moses: The Yahwist as Historian in Exodus-Numbers Westminster/John Knox, 1994.

* Wiseman, P. J. Ancient Records and the Structure of Genesis Thomas Nelson, Inc., Nashville, TN, USA 1985.

* Whybray, R. N. The Making of the Pentateuch: A Methodological Study JSOTSup 53. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1987.

For many info see Wiki... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary_hypothesis

To me they are only names and somewhat ambiguous ones at that. Jehovah is a German pronunciation of YHWH and Elohim refers to so many deities and semi-deities, including dead people (Not a Mormon teaching, but a Jewish one.)

That is not LDS theology, they are specific names as you know, how did these names come to be?

Are you LDS? In my 30+ years of being a Mormon I have rarely if ever heard Jehovah used and even less Elohim. These are terms that are not easily bantered about.

Share this post


Link to post
Are you LDS? In my 30+ years of being a Mormon I have rarely if ever heard Jehovah used and even less Elohim. These are terms that are not easily bantered about.

Well, I'm LDS and I've definitely heard God the Father called "Elohim" and the pre-mortal Christ called "Jehovah." Temple-going LDS hear these names frequently.

Share this post


Link to post
Are you LDS?  In my 30+ years of being a Mormon I have rarely if ever heard Jehovah used and even less Elohim.  These are terms that are not easily bantered about.

Well, I'm LDS and I've definitely heard God the Father called "Elohim" and the pre-mortal Christ called "Jehovah." Temple-going LDS hear these names frequently.

To repeat..."These are terms that are not easily bantered about. "

Definitely not in a academic sense.

Share this post


Link to post

HI EA,

My question is what is the evidence, you say that there is evidence, yet you just give names of scholars, I could give names of men that are theologians, so what? My question is what is the evidence, if your going to make a statement that a book of the bible has been changed, tell me how this was done, when, and by whom...what did they change it from ? You say we are playing the scholarship game,...no you are.

If you give me the evidence I promise I will look at it and respond, and certainly test it with what I believe. Not to change the subject but, if I make a statement that the BOM has been changed, I can show you that it has been, so if you have some proof that Deut. 17 has been changed, what is it, I am truly interested to know?

Your references you gave me as scholars for your theory include evangelicals Josh McDowell, and scholar Gleason Archer, which shows me you are just cutting and pasting. I can also do that and add to the list that would disagree with your view such as John Warwick Montgomery,Geisler,Gary Habermas. I just cut and pasted this and aside from Geisler I have not read much on them, but they would rebute your theory.

This is why I ask questions EA, people just lock onto liberal theology without studying, the references you gave give both sides.

Are you LDS? In my 30+ years of being a Mormon I have rarely if ever heard Jehovah used and even less Elohim. These are terms that are not easily bantered about.

Not now, I was for 34 years, and to say that the names we are speaking are not part of LDS theology is just not true, there is much written on the subject, maybe it is a doctrine that is slipping away.

Anyways, I'll dig out some quotes, it is important to this conversation.

Mark

John 1:12

Share this post


Link to post

Your references you gave me as scholars for your theory include evangelicals Josh McDowell, and scholar Gleason Archer, which shows me you are just cutting and pasting.

I believe I stated I received my info from Wiki. And what does McDowell and Archer have to say?

I can show you that it has been, so if you have some proof that Deut. 17 has been changed, what is it, I am truly interested to know?

I never stated that Deut. 17 was changed or altered. I think that it is, in fact, a product of scholarship much later in Israel's history and not a product of Moses. In 1943 Martin Noth argued that there was a subliminal connectivity between the books from Deuteronomy to 2Kings. In all writings a scholar can find certain nuances of similarity. Many scholars since then have speculated that the writer of Deuteronomy has been variously one man, two or more.

My question is what is the evidence, you say that there is eveidence, yet you just give names of scholars, I could give names of men that are theologins, so what?

Well, I wish you would. Establishing errancy in the OT would require the original manuscripts. Since neither you or I have such or are likely to obtain them it would impossible for either one of us to prove the errancy or inerrancy of the OT. We can simply look at the evidences of such and make our determinations. But, just for fun let's look at Noah who in Gen 7:2-3 takes 7 pairs of each type of animal onto the ark where earlier in Gen 6:19 Noah takes one pair of animal onto the ark. Why the confusion? Simply put, there are two accounts, one representative of the Priestly class and the other of J or Yahwehist class.

Share this post


Link to post

Hi EA,

And what does McDowell and Archer have to say?

I don't know, you quoted them? I do have ETDAV vol. 2, I supose I can look it up

I never stated that Deut. 17 was changed or altered
.

This is what you said...

As to your first point Genesis 17 is generally thought to be a later addition to the OT by the Priestly strata.

Does not that imply that the original text was altered and thus changed in context? Come on EA.

Read your wiki quote, it is just a bunch of theories

Mare later

Mark

john 1:12

Share this post


Link to post

Genesis ≠ Duet

You miss referenced it thus EA's confusion.

Share this post


Link to post
Are you LDS?

Share this post


Link to post
I never stated that Deut. 17 was changed or altered
.

This is what you said...

As to your first point Genesis 17 is generally thought to be a later addition to the OT by the Priestly strata.

Does not that imply that the original text was altered and thus changed in context? Come on EA.

Sorry for the obvious confusion, but a later addition doesn't necessarily mean that it was altered only added. The written word then as well as today has its limitations.

Read your wiki quote, it is just a bunch of theories

Aren't they all? Some are better than others, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Are you LDS?  In my 30+ years of being a Mormon I have rarely if ever heard Jehovah used and even less Elohim.  These are terms that are not easily bantered about.

Well, I'm LDS and I've definitely heard God the Father called "Elohim" and the pre-mortal Christ called "Jehovah." Temple-going LDS hear these names frequently.

To repeat..."These are terms that are not easily bantered about. "

Definitely not in a academic sense.

Buzzzzz . . . your comments on Jehovah simply aren't credible, IMO.

Hymns, Praise to the Man, no. 27

Praise to the man who communed with Jehovah!

Jesus anointed that Prophet and Seer.

Blessed to open the last dispensation,

Kings shall extol him, and nations revere.

It's in the proclamation done at the millenium, and in simply tons of manuals and articles.

Now, on Elohim you have a point for those of us who need our food pre-chewed or otherwise missed something taught a couple times every three years. It's in the AP manual in a lesson on the Godhead (and a YW manual) which is used at least twice in Youth classes and tied to a Bible verse (Eloi, Aramaic) . . then it's in 4 of the MP/RS manuals. And hymn #287 which I don't remember ever singing . . .

Okay, okay....I surrender on this point. I guess I should have said that I never use these terms. Maybe its the ex-Catholic in me that has shut out these terms. I suppose I just don't like their usages since they are inaccurate terms, e.g. Jehovah because it is a mistranslation and Elohim because it is not definitive enough.

Share this post


Link to post

Hi EA.

Sorry for the obvious confusion, but a later addition doesn't necessarily mean that it was altered only added. The written word then as well as today has its limitations.

So then what is your proof? Why do you use one Genesis verse as a proof text ( 14:22) then say the verses I give (17: 1-3) were changed?

Aren't they all? Some are better than others, though.

Which are the ones that reflect LDS ideology?

Bottom line is that the Bible as we have it, is very clear that Idolatry is wrong, there is one God, and He corrects that nations non-being gods, the God of the bible is called the true and Living, the seeing God, and other attributes that imply one true God, while the attributes of the nations gods are always portraying gods that are not real, but made by man.

All you have offered for evidence is cut and pasted names debating the many views held, which I doubt you have read do to your providing evangelicals to your references.

Mark

John 1:12

Share this post


Link to post
So then what is your proof? Why do you use one Genesis verse as a proof text ( 14:22) then say the verses I give  (17: 1-3) were changed?

Genesis?? You said Deuteronomy 17.

I never stated that Deut. 17 was changed or altered

.

This is what you said...

QUOTE

As to your first point Genesis 17 is generally thought to be a later addition to the OT by the Priestly strata.

We are not communicating, I think. Is it Deuteronomy or Genesis? As Zak as stated you misreferenced it.

Aren't they all? Some are better than others, though.

Which are the ones that reflect LDS ideology?

To be fair, I am not here to discuss LDS theology because I am not always in agreement with it. Therefore, I will recuse myself. For the record, however, I believe the Mormon approach to the Bible would be closer to your beliefs.

Bottom line is that the Bible as we have it, is very clear that Idolatry is wrong, there is one God, and He corrects that nations non-being gods,...

I would agree that the Bible teaches that idolatry is wrong, but I also recognize that the while the Bible says one thing people did another expressing their greater traditional views.

All you have offered for evidence is cut and pasted names debating the many views held, which I doubt you have read do to your providing evangelicals to your references.

How disingenious of you. I did a quoted cut and paste showing you a list of scholars who support the P, D, J, E positions and then you proceed to insult me by insisting I haven't read them. Admittedly, I haven't read all of them, but I have read most. I was simply showing that there is a vast discussion among scholars, yes, even evangelical ones that need to be listened to. The rest of the information you have either ignored or simply and without evidence disagreed. That is not logical thinking, but opinion. I have often found that those with opinion and not facts are the ones who are completely ignorant on the subjects and have done little reading on their own, not the opposite.

Additionally, I offered a sample discrepancy in the Bible referencing Noah's ark and you appear to be reluctant to answer it.

Share this post


Link to post

Markk,

I have a question that might settle some disagreements, who do you believe wrote the Bible and when?

Share this post


Link to post

HI EA,

Deut. was a typo, I think you knew that?

To be fair, I am not here to discuss LDS theology because I am not always in agreement with it. Therefore, I will recuse myself. For the record, however, I believe the Mormon approach to the Bible would be closer to your beliefs.

My point was to assimilation of names, it is a cop out to not get into the many views held.

I would agree that the Bible teaches that idolatry is wrong, but I also recognize that the while the Bible says one thing people did another expressing their greater traditional views.

Which the Bible gives a history of and corrects, we agree here. They were also punished for going against the teachings.

How disingenious of you. I did a quoted cut and paste showing you a list of scholars who support the P, D, J, E positions and then you proceed to insult me by insisting I haven't read them. Admittedly, I haven't read all of them, but I have read most. I was simply showing that there is a vast discussion among scholars, yes, even evangelical ones that need to be listened to. The rest of the information you have either ignored or simply and without evidence disagreed. That is not logical thinking, but opinion. I have often found that those with opinion and not facts are the ones who are completely ignorant on the subjects and have done little reading on their own, not the opposite.

The last thing I would do is want to offend you, I'm sorry, posts are wooden and I didn't mean the way it came out, I'm sorry. What "Fact" then shows that Genesis 17 was altered, changed or added to, and 14 is a solid proof text?

who do you believe wrote the Bible and when?

I believe God inspired men to write the Bible, when? do you want estimated dates"

Mark

John 1:12

Share this post


Link to post
Deut. was a typo, I think you knew that?

Nope...I didn't. Next time some clarification, please.

My point was to assimilation of names, it is a cop out to not get into the many views held.

That's fine. You start.

The last thing I would do is want to offend you, I'm sorry, posts are wooden and I didn't mean the way it came out, I'm sorry. What "Fact" then shows that Genesis 17 was altered, changed or added to, and 14  is a solid proof text?

No permanent harm done. Apology accepted. Honestly, I don't remember stating that Gen 17 was altered and c. 14 was authentic. I was specifically mentioning that the whole of Pentateuch was made up of various redactic writings such as Gen. 7 and Noah's ark. Can you re post my discussion of such?

I believe God inspired men to write the Bible, when? do you want estimated dates"

Yes, I would. Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post

What "Fact" then shows that Genesis 17 was altered, changed or added to, and 14  is a solid proof text?

It is widely believed that Gensis 17 was of a different writer than Genesis 15.

Some examples

1. Gen. 15 uses Yhwh (Lord) instead of the Canaanite name El Shaddai (RSV) or El Elyon in Gen. 18

2. Covenant is not used in Gen 15, but is used in Gen. 17.

The Interpreter's Bible is an excellent source for all of this.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...