Are The Gods Of The Hebrew Bible Real?

[Bill Hamblin]

I am wondering, first of all, if any other Mormons here agree with this statement. Usually, when Mormons argue that the Hebrew Bible affirms the existence of a multiplicity of gods, they do so because they think this coheres with or supports in some way the LDS doctrine of a plurality of gods. Yet such a line of argument seems to be undermined if one denies the reality or existence of those gods described in the Hebrew Bible. Dan's interest in the Old Testament appears to have nothing to do with agreeing with any doctrine or theology that he finds there, but instead is focused only on critiquing the evangelical belief in the Bible as an authoritative source of truth about God. His point would be no different if his argument was that Noah's flood was a myth or that the Exodus didn't happen. Elsewhere Dan has stated quite clearly that he is not arguing for any correlation between the Hebrew Bible's gods and the gods of LDS theology. So my first question here, for anyone who is interested, is whether you as a Mormon agree with Dan on this point.

Jesus seems to believe that the ancient Canaanite gods were real. He talks about Beelzebul (= New Testament rendition of Canaanite Baal-zebub, (2 Kgs. 1:2-6), who is called the "prince (archōn) of demons" (Mt. 12:24; Mk. 3:22; Lk. 11:15) as a real being. (Mt. 10:25; Mt. 12:27; Lk. 18-19) Beelzebul is probably here understood here to be Satan. In other words, the Canaanite god Baal is real, but he is Satan.

Paul likewise speaks of "the god of this age" as a real being to prevents people from accepting Christ. (2 Cor. 4:4) The most obvious interpretation of this passage is that he is referring to some Hellenistic/Roman/Canaanite deity, whom he probably equated with Satan.

This is likewise the interpretation of many early Christians, and we see it reflected in Milton's Paradise Lost, where Satan's demons are all pagan gods.

Daniel also implies that the princes (sar) are real beings who fight with Michael, who is the sar of Israel (Dan. 10:13, 20, 21:1). These princes of foreign lands, too, seem to be foreign gods.

So, given your view that the Bible is inerrant, shouldn't all Evangelicals believe that the pagan gods are real, but are demons?

[jo1952]

Jesus seems to believe that the ancient Canaanite gods were real. He talks about Beelzebul (= New Testament rendition of Canaanite Baal-zebub, (2 Kgs. 1:2-6), who is called the "prince (archōn) of demons" (Mt. 12:24; Mk. 3:22; Lk. 11:15) as a real being. (Mt. 10:25; Mt. 12:27; Lk. 18-19) Beelzebul is probably here understood here to be Satan. In other words, the Canaanite god Baal is real, but he is Satan.

Paul likewise speaks of "the god of this age" as a real being to prevents people from accepting Christ. (2 Cor. 4:4) The most obvious interpretation of this passage is that he is referring to some Hellenistic/Roman/Canaanite deity, whom he probably equated with Satan.

This is likewise the interpretation of many early Christians, and we see it reflected in Milton's Paradise Lost, where Satan's demons are all pagan gods.

Daniel also implies that the princes (sar) are real beings who fight with Michael, who is the sar of Israel (Dan. 10:13, 20, 21:1). These princes of foreign lands, too, seem to be foreign gods.

So, given your view that the Bible is inerrant, shouldn't all Evangelicals believe that the pagan gods are real, but are demons?

Hey!! Great minds think alike!! (and pretty much at the same time, too!)

jo

[maklelan]

So, given your view that the Bible is inerrant, shouldn't all Evangelicals believe that the pagan gods are real, but are demons?

This is the position in Deut 32:17, where the author states that the Israelites sacrificed "to demons, not to God, to gods whom they did not know." The appositional state of "gods whom they did not know" identifies them with the demons to whom they offered worship. Demons are gods according to Deut 32:17, and in general a demon is just a god I don't like. Paul quotes this verse in 1 Cor 10:20 when he states that the Gentiles who use idols in their worship make offerings "to devils, and not to God" (the LXX translates the verse correctly, rendering "God" for the first occurrence of elohim and "gods" for the second--see Heiser's discussion here).

[mfbukowski]

real = what exists.

gosh, that never occurred to me.

[Rob Bowman]

jo,

I can offer only a brief reply at this time. Perhaps later we might discuss the Trinity in one or more separate threads.

As you may know, evangelicals and other orthodox Christians differ from Mormons theologically in many ways. One of those ways pertain to the doctrine of Satan and the demons (demonology). We do not view Satan as a "god" in a positive or affirmative sense or connotation. Angels, demons, and Satan may occasionally be called "gods" in the loose sense of supernatural beings, but this is a very different usage from the Bible's most common references to "God." Satan is not the god of this earth; Paul calls him "the god of this age" (2 Cor. 4:4), meaning that Satan is the supernatural power leading the rebellion against the true God that characterizes this age as distinct from the age to come. We believe that Satan exists but we do not "believe in" Satan as an object of faith, any more than we believe in Hitler or any other evil being.

The biblical basis for the doctrine of the Trinity is not some superficial argument that if each person is called "g-o-d" then they must be three persons in one God. There is much, much more to it than that. When you suggest that Trinitarians have not thought sufficiently about the devil as a fourth god, you are mistaken, because you don't understand the reasoning behind the doctrine of the Trinity. I have produced a detailed outline study that presents temple content:line removed that you may find helpful.

I would like to throw a curve ball at you, Mr. Bowman. Do you believe Satan exists? I believe he does. He and his cohorts have been given power and dominion over the earth through the principalities of darkness allowed him by the most High God. His free will has not been taken away from him, though he has been limited in his progress wherein he will not be receiving a physical body. Although he did not create it, he is called the god of the earth - but not the god mankind; yet he has a great deal of influence over us to the extent he can prevent us from returning to our Heavenly Father. I wouldn't be surprised in the least that when we were given the commandment to not have any other gods before us, Satan could very well have been in mind as a god who should not come before the Lord in the eyes of mankind.

Unfortunately, some of mankind do follow Satan, though this god of the earth cares nothing about his followers. He does not have the same attributes of any of the Beings in the Godhead we know as Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, although he ranks very high in intelligence and he also believes in the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. He obeys them even if he doesn't give allegiance to them.

Inasmuch as Satan is a very real god, and that people who believe in God, also believe in Satan, the difference is that believers do not worship Satan. Now, do those who believe in the Trinity theory (i.e., that all three Beings of the Godhead are of one essence, or ontologically the same) also believe that the god of the earth is also of that same essence? Or is he a different type of or level of god? Did the most High God create another series of gods? Perhaps at the end of the day those who believe in the Trinity theory have not given much thought to the fourth god being they believe in but do not give allegiance to. This circumstance alone has the power to place doubt on the Trinity theory. It seems clear to me that the very title of "god" is being recognized by the most High God as having a significant role in the Plan of Salvation beyond the three Beings usually considered by man - even if those who hold to the Trinity theory do not.

Just some thoughts.

Regards,

jo

NOTE: Do not link to websites that violate what any religion holds sacred if you want to remain on this board. Minos

[Rob Bowman]

Bill,

You wrote:

Jesus seems to believe that the ancient Canaanite gods were real. He talks about Beelzebul (= New Testament rendition of Canaanite Baal-zebub, (2 Kgs. 1:2-6), who is called the "prince (archōn) of demons" (Mt. 12:24; Mk. 3:22; Lk. 11:15) as a real being. (Mt. 10:25; Mt. 12:27; Lk. 18-19) Beelzebul is probably here understood here to be Satan. In other words, the Canaanite god Baal is real, but he is Satan.

Paul likewise speaks of "the god of this age" as a real being to prevents people from accepting Christ. (2 Cor. 4:4) The most obvious interpretation of this passage is that he is referring to some Hellenistic/Roman/Canaanite deity, whom he probably equated with Satan.

This is likewise the interpretation of many early Christians, and we see it reflected in Milton's Paradise Lost, where Satan's demons are all pagan gods.

Daniel also implies that the princes (sar) are real beings who fight with Michael, who is the sar of Israel (Dan. 10:13, 20, 21:1). These princes of foreign lands, too, seem to be foreign gods.

So, given your view that the Bible is inerrant, shouldn't all Evangelicals believe that the pagan gods are real, but are demons?

Since the evidence that Jesus said the things you cited is pretty good and there's no reason to think these texts were not translated correcty, then, inerrancy aside, by your own reasoning shouldn't all Mormons also believe that the pagan gods are real, but demons? I started this thread asking Mormons to comment on whether they believe that the gods of the Hebrew Bible are real. How about you answer this question?

The fact is that most evangelicals with whose views I am familiar do think that demons were real beings who inspired pagan religions and who often were in some way identified as various deities. But most of us evangelicals also think that a lot of the gods of the nations were nothing more than figments of the people's superstitious imagination. These are not mutually exclusive ideas. Furthermore, we deny that these "gods" were ever legitimate rulers over their claimed domains.

[Bill Hamblin]

Bill,

You wrote:

Since the evidence that Jesus said the things you cited is pretty good and there's no reason to think these texts were not translated correcty, then, inerrancy aside, by your own reasoning shouldn't all Mormons also believe that the pagan gods are real, but demons? I started this thread asking Mormons to comment on whether they believe that the gods of the Hebrew Bible are real. How about you answer this question?

The fact is that most evangelicals with whose views I am familiar do think that demons were real beings who inspired pagan religions and who often were in some way identified as various deities. But most of us evangelicals also think that a lot of the gods of the nations were nothing more than figments of the people's superstitious imagination. These are not mutually exclusive ideas. Furthermore, we deny that these "gods" were ever legitimate rulers over their claimed domains.

Personally, I have no idea if they are real or imaginary or a combination of both. Wouldn't bother me either way. As far as I know there is no Mormon doctrine on the subject.

What is clear to me, however, is that the Israelites, New Testament Christians, and early Christians believed the gods of the nations were real beings, and at least some could be demons. (The issue is not what the Canaanites believed about their gods; its what the Israelites believed about the Canaanite gods.)

Therefore, you believe, minimally, that the "other gods" of the Old Testament could be real. And are called gods. Problem solved.

[altersteve]

We do not view Satan as a "god" in a positive or affirmative sense or connotation.

Neither do we.

Angels, demons, and Satan may occasionally be called "gods" in the loose sense of supernatural beings, but this is a very different usage from the Bible's most common references to "God."

Latter-day Saints agree. The "plurality of gods" doctrine that critics seem to love to put on us is nothing more than a belief in other "supernatural beings" that are all under the authority of God the Father. All heavenly, angelic, or godlike beings are all considered "gods" by the accepted definition of the term.

Satan is not the god of this earth;

He was given power and dominion over the earth as far as God allows him to, so technically, yes he is.

We believe that Satan exists but we do not "believe in" Satan as an object of faith,

Neither do we. Why would you say this?

any more than we believe in Hitler or any other evil being.

I don't believe it is your place or anyone else's to refer to any human being as "evil."

[Ron Beron]

I don't believe it is your place or anyone else's to refer to any human being as "evil."

You had me until here. Of course we can label people evil. If we don't how can we avoid it?

[maklelan]

Angels, demons, and Satan may occasionally be called "gods" in the loose sense of supernatural beings, but this is a very different usage from the Bible's most common references to "God."

I disagree with this and would ask what textual evidence leads you to believe that the most common usage of the word "God" (in reference to the God of Israel) differs in any grammatical way from its usage in reference to mere supernatural beings.

There are two general uses of the word "god" (אלהים), abstract and generic. The singular use of the morphologically plural word developed out of the abstract plural, and the abstract usage (the adjectival genitive) still appears in numerous places: "divine visions" (Ezek 1:1; 8:3; 40:2); "divine reply" (Mic 3:7); "divine trembling" (1 Sam 14:15); "divine terror" (Gen 35:5); "divine spirit" (Gen 1:2); "divine wisdom" (1 Kgs 3:28); "divine voice," i.e., "thunder" (Exod 9:28). They all have the word אלהים as the nomen rectum. Every other use is the generic use, whether it is appellative or otherwise. The only thing that nuances the word in reference to one deity or another is the context. Joel S. Burnett has stated, "the prominence of 'elohim in established expressions dealing with activities and phenomena not peculiar to Yahweh but applicable to gods or to "the divine" in general emphasizes the word's generic and flexible meaning" (A Reassessment of Biblical Elohim, 62). See also p. 72: "Due in large part to its abstract nature, 'elohim was both generic in meaning and flexible in usage, as demonstrated in the broad range of its use with the sense 'god,' 'deity,' or 'the divine.'" Examples of the transferability of the term where it is usually used in reference to the God of Israel include אלהי עקרון, "the god of Ekron" (2 Kgs 1:2, 3, 6, 16), which is no different, grammatically, from לעשתרת אלהי צדנין, "Ashtoreth, the god of the Sidonians" (1 Kgs 11:33--note the generic nature of the noun is made clear by the masculine plural used in reference to a female deity), or אלהי ישראל, "the god of Israel." Look at Judg 11:24: "Do you not possess that which Chemosh, your god (כמוש אלהיך), causes you to possess? And do we not possess that which Yahweh our god (יהוה אלהינו) places before us to possess?" The use of the definite article doesn't change things. In Num 23:27 Balak, the king of Moab, uses the singular elohim with the definite article in reference to the Moabite national deity (Chemosh). There are many other examples. Elohim was a simple generic noun that was often used as an appellative. In no way does its usage in reference to the God of Israel differ from its usage in reference to mere supernatural beings (except for the difference in singular or plural referent (such as in Deut 32:17: they sacrifice to demons, not to God [אלהים]; gods [אלהים] whom they did not know), but that singular/plural difference has no bearing in and of itself on whether the word refers to the God of Israel or to any other god; context alone is determinative).

[elguanteloko]

gosh, that never occurred to me.

I'm here to help.

I've seen you discussing epistemological issues but never about what we actually mean by the word "real" until now so I thought I would clarify it. How things exist (physical stuff, ideas, sensations, etc) and how we get to know them are different issues from what reality is; related, obviously, but different. Thus, questions like "how do we weigh love?" are different from "does love exist?" and from "how (in what form) does love exist?" I too often see you confusing those different questions.

[urroner]

I don't believe it is your place or anyone else's to refer to any human being as "evil."

If we are not suppose to label any human being as "evil," are we suppose to label any human being as "righteous" or any shade of gray between righteous and evil?

[jo1952]

'Rob Bowman' timestamp='1309145933' post='1209021869']

jo,

I can offer only a brief reply at this time. Perhaps later we might discuss the Trinity in one or more separate threads.

As you may know, evangelicals and other orthodox Christians differ from Mormons theologically in many ways. One of those ways pertain to the doctrine of Satan and the demons (demonology). We do not view Satan as a "god" in a positive or affirmative sense or connotation. Angels, demons, and Satan may occasionally be called "gods" in the loose sense of supernatural beings, but this is a very different usage from the Bible's most common references to "God." Satan is not the god of this earth; Paul calls him "the god of this age" (2 Cor. 4:4), meaning that Satan is the supernatural power leading the rebellion against the true God that characterizes this age as distinct from the age to come. We believe that Satan exists but we do not "believe in" Satan as an object of faith, any more than we believe in Hitler or any other evil being.

Hi Rob!

It is my understanding that the EV view of Father is that He is only spirit – iow, supernatural in some way – without even a glorified body. Satan has no physical body, though he is able to manifest as though he has one – but is supernatural, or spirit.

Remember when Jesus was tempted by Satan in the wilderness? The conversation between Jesus and Satan seems to make it clear that the earth now is the dominion of Satan – IOW, even Jesus does not deny that Satan is the god of the earth.

Luke 4:3-8

3 And the devil said unto him, If thou be the Son of God, command this stone that it be made bread.

4 And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.

5 And the devil, taking him up into an high mountain, shewed unto him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time.

6 And the devil said unto him, All this power will I give thee, and the glory of them: for that is delivered unto me; and to whomsoever I will I give it.

7 If thou therefore wilt worship me, all shall be thine.

8 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Get thee behind me, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.

First of all, how is it Satan was able to take Christ (a God) ANYWHERE---such as the place of Satan’s own choosing? Secondly, when Satan tells Jesus that he (Satan) will give Jesus all the kingdoms of the world, Jesus never denies that they belong to Satan. Instead, Jesus reminds Satan of his sin – which is that he fails to worship and serve his God!!!

In Revelation we see that Jesus is given the deed to the earth. So, who has that deed now?

What type of powers would you personally say that a "god" has? Is Paul talking about "this age" as being the age of the earth as we know it? In the end times, Satan will be allowed to use his existing powers to perform the same kinds of miracles which Jesus and His Apostles performed; including, but not limited to, raising the dead. To me, this is the kind of power which only a "god" type of being can possess. We are taught that Satan's powers will be so great that even the Elect are in danger of being fooled by him. So, what exactly are Satan and the anti-christ going to be fooling mankind about? They will manifest the same powers. What is it the anti-christ going to claim? He will be claiming to BE God. Who else but another who has the same kind of power to perform miracles which can fool the Elect, could have the power of a god if he were not a god? Even if he is of a lower or subset of those who appear to man in this earthly realm to be equal in their abilitities as "gods"? Think seriously about it.

Even if you want to call Satan’s being recognized as a god a "title", where is his god-like power coming from? Neither Satan nor the anti-christ will be performing these miracles in the name of Jesus Christ. As I recall, Revelation explains that the anti-christ will receive his power from Satan; and Satan already possesses these powers. If one stops long enough to see what these teachings will really look like as they are unfolding, it is not difficult to see that the power held by Satan is akin to at least some of the power which Jesus manifested. Jesus, however, recognized and taught that His power AND His authority came from Heavenly Father. Satan will NOT be giving this glory to Father, or worshipping his God; but, rather, he worships and gives glory to himself. This is the pride which got Satan into trouble to begin with.

The differences we are learning in our time on the earth is between good and evil. This ability is a quality of a god.

Genesis 3:22

And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

In addition to learning the consequences of our choices between good and evil, we should also be learning to recognize the "Good" Gods from the "evil" gods.

Also, consider that the LDS believe the Bible is literal when it describes mankind as the sons and daughters of God (the most High God - the Almighty God - Heavenly Father). It is not a stretch to think outside the box of what various men have taught about God, to also believe that Satan, as an organized Intelligence is, also a spiritual offspring of the most High God. Satan is also called "prince" - but of darkness; not the "Prince" of Peace or the source of "light" which Jesus is known as. Satan absolutely is a god; but he has fallen and is no longer able to be in the presence of Father. However, he IS able to be in the presence of Jesus:

Job 1:7

And the LORD said unto Satan, Whence comest thou? Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it.

(Please note, btw, that this took place BEFORE Jesus came to the earth in the flesh – before He manifested Himself as part of any man-made Trinity theory)

As another thought, would you consider all the efforts which Jesus has accomplished and continues to accomplish in His fight against Satan, merely a fight against someone who does not have at least some of the powers of a god? To me it is ludicrous to ponder that Jesus would have such a difficult and constant battle going on with someone who does not have the powers of a god.

The biblical basis for the doctrine of the Trinity is not some superficial argument that if each person is called "g-o-d" then they must be three persons in one God. There is much, much more to it than that. When you suggest that Trinitarians have not thought sufficiently about the devil as a fourth god, you are mistaken, because you don't understand the reasoning behind the doctrine of the Trinity. I have produced a detailed outline study that presents temple content:line removed that you may find helpful.

I would agree that the basis for the doctrine of the Trinity is not some superficial argument. Un-numbered men, women, and children have lost their lives because of it. I appreciate your desire to educate me further. You should know, however, that I was raised a Lutheran and am well-versed in a doctrine which I could never accept. It is NOT the doctrine which studying the Bible has ever taught me. It was a breath of fresh air to find that the LDS Church believes in three separate and individual (non-ontological, non-same essence) Beings who make up the Godhead for our world, who are united and are one in purpose.

Regards,

jo

[mfbukowski]

I'm here to help. I too often see you confusing those different questions.

Uh huh.

I suggest you read this as an introduction to a position very close to mine. I have no intention to carry this conversation any further.

Edited June 27, 2011 by mfbukowski

[altersteve]

If we are not suppose to label any human being as "evil," are we suppose to label any human being as "righteous" or any shade of gray between righteous and evil?

Point taken. However, all I meant was that I don't believe that humans are evil. They may do evil things, but surely even Hitler wasn't Satan incarnated or anything of the sort.

[Ron Beron]

Point taken. However, all I meant was that I don't believe that humans are evil. They may do evil things, but surely even Hitler wasn't Satan incarnated or anything of the sort.

Some humans are indeed evil. Maybe they weren't born that way, but it has been my sad and long experience working with "bad" people that we make monsters through bad parenting and corrupt societies.

[Robert F. Smith]

real = what exists.

Is existence a predicate?

[Robert F. Smith]

The question I am raising here was prompted by a statement made by Dan McClellan on the CARM forum:

I am wondering, first of all, if any other Mormons here agree with this statement. Usually, when Mormons argue that the Hebrew Bible affirms the existence of a multiplicity of gods, they do so because they think this coheres with or supports in some way the LDS doctrine of a plurality of gods. Yet such a line of argument seems to be undermined if one denies the reality or existence of those gods described in the Hebrew Bible. Dan's interest in the Old Testament appears to have nothing to do with agreeing with any doctrine or theology that he finds there, but instead is focused only on critiquing the evangelical belief in the Bible as an authoritative source of truth about God. His point would be no different if his argument was that Noah's flood was a myth or that the Exodus didn't happen. Elsewhere Dan has stated quite clearly that he is not arguing for any correlation between the Hebrew Bible's gods and the gods of LDS theology. So my first question here, for anyone who is interested, is whether you as a Mormon agree with Dan on this point.

My second question is especially for Dan himself, though again I invite others to share their thoughts. Dan has argued that El and Yahweh were originally two separate deities in the ancient Near Eastern culture, deities of non-Israelite peoples, and that somewhere toward the end of the era of the Hebrew Bible the two deities were assimilated to one another or fused into a single deity. Now, consider the implications of this theory along with the claim that the Hebrew Bible affirms the reality of gods that in fact (according to Dan) were not real. The logical implication seems to be that Dan would also not believe in El or Yahweh. After all, they were no different, fundamentally, from the other ANE deities that Dan says were not real. So this leads me to wonder if it would not be accurate to conclude that when Dan says "I don't believe the gods described in the Hebrew Bible are real" that includes El and Yahweh. So Dan, I'm asking if this is correct. I'm also asking what other Mormons here think on this question.

Dan replies:

You would be incorrect. This literary conflation is just a different method for referring to the God of Israel, and Mormons believe, as do most Christians, that the textual identification of Jesus and the Father often overlaps. The difference is that Mormons believe this happens because of divine investiture of authority and things like that, while most Christians believe it is because the two share the same divine identity. In other words, Yahweh Elohim could refer to the premortal Jesus or to the Father. I don't believe it refers to some ontological conflation of the two.

If we leave behind for the moment what is widely acknowledged to be polytheistic Israelite popular religion -- against which the prophets constantly inveighed -- we might want to ask about the obvious commonality among diverse religions worldwide, as discussed by the late Joseph Campbell, and of Near Eastern religions as discussed by the late Cyrus Gordon and William Albright. Why the close parallels? Why do ancient Near Eastern gods (including the God of Israel) share so many motifs in common? The Mormon answer is that such traditions come down from high antiquity, and in the course of transmission are somewhat garbled but still recognizable as directly parallel to well-known features of the Canaanite and other pantheons. I deal with some of these issues in my paper on Satan HERE. The need to maintain the purity of such a sacred tradition is paramount, and the avoidance of paganizing tendencies essential -- without of course making the mistaken claim that Allah of the Qur'an is not simply an Arabic version of El(ohim) and is therefore not the same as the Judeo-Christian God. Many Muslims mistakenly make that assumption, although the educated elite know very well that it is an absurd claim.

The most common error made by nearly all Judeo-Christian believers is to take the descriptive terminology (epithets) of the gods as actual names. The "names" are merely titles and offices to be filled by a member of the pantheon. This makes particularly good sense in Mormon religion, not only due to the separate ontological being of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, but also where there is a constant infusion of gods over time via apotheosis.

[zerinus]

Since the evidence that Jesus said the things you cited is pretty good and there's no reason to think these texts were not translated correcty, then, inerrancy aside, by your own reasoning shouldn't all Mormons also believe that the pagan gods are real, but demons? I started this thread asking Mormons to comment on whether they believe that the gods of the Hebrew Bible are real. How about you answer this question?

The Hebrew Bible talks about real Gods as well as false gods. Mormons believe that the real Gods are real Gods, and the false gods are false gods.

The fact is that most evangelicals with whose views I am familiar do think that demons were real beings who inspired pagan religions and who often were in some way identified as various deities.

I think that most Mormons would agree with that assessment.

But most of us evangelicals also think that a lot of the gods of the nations were nothing more than figments of the people's superstitious imagination. These are not mutually exclusive ideas.

I think that most Mormons would agree.

Furthermore, we deny that these "gods" were ever legitimate rulers over their claimed domains.

If you are referring to "demons," I am sure demons have their own "infernal domains" which they rule over. Satan is the king and ruler of the underworld, whereas as Christ is the king and ruler of heaven.

Edited June 30, 2011 by zerinus

[cksalmon]

Paul likewise speaks of "the god of this age" as a real being to prevents people from accepting Christ. (2 Cor. 4:4) The most obvious interpretation of this passage is that he is referring to some Hellenistic/Roman/Canaanite deity, whom he probably equated with Satan.

That the being is "Satan" is certainly the most common interpretation, but on what grounds is it the "most obvious?" I have no idea where you get idea that the being in question is "most [obviously]" interpreted as a "Hellenistic/Roman/Canaanite deity." Also, I apparently don't know what you mean by "obvious." "[Obviously]" a "Hellenistic/Roman/Canaanite deity?" The slashes appear to obviate obviousness.

It's certainly not unequivocally so just because the being in question blinds nonbelievers to the truth of the Gospel, even in the face of Paul's apostolic "open statement of the truth."

This passage resonates significantly with the divine commissioning of Isaiah's prophetic ministry (see Is. 6), wherein Isaiah is commanded to"[M]ake the heart of this people dull, and their ears heavy, and blind their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their hearts, and turn and be healed."

On the other hand, quoth Calvin: "No one that judges rightly can have any doubt, that it is of Satan that the Apostle speaks." And then immediately conceded that ol' Golden Mouth, Ambrose, and Augustine held a contrary view.

Edited to add: "I have no idea where you get idea that the being in question is 'most [obviously]' interpreted as a 'Hellenistic/Roman/Canaanite deity.' Also, I apparently don't know what you mean by 'obvious.' '[Obviously]' a 'Hellenistic/Roman/Canaanite deity?' The slashes appear to obviate obviousness."

Edited June 30, 2011 by cksalmon

[Robert F. Smith]

That the being is "Satan" is certainly the most common interpretation, but on what grounds is it the "most obvious?" I have no idea where you get idea that the being in question is "most [obviously]" interpreted as a "Hellenistic/Roman/Canaanite deity." Also, I apparently don't know what you mean by "obvious." "[Obviously]" a "Hellenistic/Roman/Canaanite deity?" The slashes appear to obviate obviousness.

It's certainly not unequivocally so just because the being in question blinds nonbelievers to the truth of the Gospel, even in the face of Paul's apostolic "open statement of the truth."

This passage resonates significantly with the divine commissioning of Isaiah's prophetic ministry (see Is. 6), wherein Isaiah is commanded to"[M]ake the heart of this people dull, and their ears heavy, and blind their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their hearts, and turn and be healed."

On the other hand, quoth Calvin: "No one that judges rightly can have any doubt, that it is of Satan that the Apostle speaks." And then immediately conceded that ol' Golden Mouth, Ambrose, and Augustine held a contrary view.

You need to read my paper on Satan HERE..

[WalkerW]

I disagree with this and would ask what textual evidence leads you to believe that the most common usage of the word "God" (in reference to the God of Israel) differs in any grammatical way from its usage in reference to mere supernatural beings.

There are two general uses of the word "god" (אלהים), abstract and generic. The singular use of the morphologically plural word developed out of the abstract plural, and the abstract usage (the adjectival genitive) still appears in numerous places: "divine visions" (Ezek 1:1; 8:3; 40:2); "divine reply" (Mic 3:7); "divine trembling" (1 Sam 14:15); "divine terror" (Gen 35:5); "divine spirit" (Gen 1:2); "divine wisdom" (1 Kgs 3:28); "divine voice," i.e., "thunder" (Exod 9:28). They all have the word אלהים as the nomen rectum. Every other use is the generic use, whether it is appellative or otherwise. The only thing that nuances the word in reference to one deity or another is the context. Joel S. Burnett has stated, "the prominence of 'elohim in established expressions dealing with activities and phenomena not peculiar to Yahweh but applicable to gods or to "the divine" in general emphasizes the word's generic and flexible meaning" (A Reassessment of Biblical Elohim, 62). See also p. 72: "Due in large part to its abstract nature, 'elohim was both generic in meaning and flexible in usage, as demonstrated in the broad range of its use with the sense 'god,' 'deity,' or 'the divine.'" Examples of the transferability of the term where it is usually used in reference to the God of Israel include אלהי עקרון, "the god of Ekron" (2 Kgs 1:2, 3, 6, 16), which is no different, grammatically, from לעשתרת אלהי צדנין, "Ashtoreth, the god of the Sidonians" (1 Kgs 11:33--note the generic nature of the noun is made clear by the masculine plural used in reference to a female deity), or אלהי ישראל, "the god of Israel." Look at Judg 11:24: "Do you not possess that which Chemosh, your god (כמוש אלהיך), causes you to possess? And do we not possess that which Yahweh our god (יהוה אלהינו) places before us to possess?" The use of the definite article doesn't change things. In Num 23:27 Balak, the king of Moab, uses the singular elohim with the definite article in reference to the Moabite national deity (Chemosh). There are many other examples. Elohim was a simple generic noun that was often used as an appellative. In no way does its usage in reference to the God of Israel differ from its usage in reference to mere supernatural beings (except for the difference in singular or plural referent (such as in Deut 32:17: they sacrifice to demons, not to God [אלהים]; gods [אלהים] whom they did not know), but that singular/plural difference has no bearing in and of itself on whether the word refers to the God of Israel or to any other god; context alone is determinative).

I ended up finding Burnett's study in the UNT library soon after reading about it on your very first blog. My views of elohim have been shaped by it ever since.

[zerinus]

All,

The question I am raising here was prompted by a statement made by Dan McClellan on the CARM forum:

I don't believe the gods described in the Hebrew Bible are real, but that is not at all demanded by the debate. It's only demanded by those who would appeal to the Bible as an unassailable witness to metaphysical truth.

I am wondering, first of all, if any other Mormons here agree with this statement.

I don’t.

Usually, when Mormons argue that the Hebrew Bible affirms the existence of a multiplicity of gods, they do so because they think this coheres with or supports in some way the LDS doctrine of a plurality of gods. Yet such a line of argument seems to be undermined if one denies the reality or existence of those gods described in the Hebrew Bible.

The Hebrew Bible talks about true Gods as well as false gods. I believe that the true Gods are true Gods, and the false gods are false gods.

Dan's interest in the Old Testament appears to have nothing to do with agreeing with any doctrine or theology that he finds there, but instead is focused only on critiquing the evangelical belief in the Bible as an authoritative source of truth about God. His point would be no different if his argument was that Noah's flood was a myth or that the Exodus didn't happen. Elsewhere Dan has stated quite clearly that he is not arguing for any correlation between the Hebrew Bible's gods and the gods of LDS theology. So my first question here, for anyone who is interested, is whether you as a Mormon agree with Dan on this point.

As you have described it, I wouldn’t, no. I admit that have found his statements to be rather confusing.

My second question is especially for Dan himself, though again I invite others to share their thoughts. Dan has argued that El and Yahweh were originally two separate deities in the ancient Near Eastern culture, deities of non-Israelite peoples, and that somewhere toward the end of the era of the Hebrew Bible the two deities were assimilated to one another or fused into a single deity.

I don’t claim to be a Hebrew scholar; but my understanding of the Bible is that El is used as a generic word that translates into the English equivalent of God/god (hence is can be pluralized, as in gods); whereas Jehovah/Yahweh is a proper name like John or Rob. Identifying Jehovah as El simply identifies Him as a Deity, a Supreme Being, the Most High.

Now, consider the implications of this theory along with the claim that the Hebrew Bible affirms the reality of gods that in fact (according to Dan) were not real. The logical implication seems to be that Dan would also not believe in El or Yahweh. After all, they were no different, fundamentally, from the other ANE deities that Dan says were not real. So this leads me to wonder if it would not be accurate to conclude that when Dan says "I don't believe the gods described in the Hebrew Bible are real" that includes El and Yahweh. So Dan, I'm asking if this is correct. I'm also asking what other Mormons here think on this question.

I think I would have come to the same conclusion about it that you have done. I have not followed the discussions; but you appear to have described it reasonably accurately; and I would have to agree.

[zerinus]

Jesus seems to believe that the ancient Canaanite gods were real. He talks about Beelzebul (= New Testament rendition of Canaanite Baal-zebub, (2 Kgs. 1:2-6), who is called the "prince (archōn) of demons" (Mt. 12:24; Mk. 3:22; Lk. 11:15) as a real being. (Mt. 10:25; Mt. 12:27; Lk. 18-19) Beelzebul is probably here understood here to be Satan. In other words, the Canaanite god Baal is real, but he is Satan.

That is not how I read that scripture. At the time of Christ, Beelzebub was used by the Jews as one of the synonyms for the devil, or Satan. It doesn’t make a statement about the ancient Canaanite God. The meaning of a word is not determined by its etymology, but by its current usage. Many English words have Latin, Greek, or French etymology, which inform us about how the word has evolved; but do not inform us about its current use. The true meaning is determining by its current use; and at that time it simply meant the devil. It was not meant to make a statement about the ancient Canaanite deity by the same name.

Paul likewise speaks of "the god of this age" as a real being to prevents people from accepting Christ. (2 Cor. 4:4) The most obvious interpretation of this passage is that he is referring to some Hellenistic/Roman/Canaanite deity, whom he probably equated with Satan.

Again, I do not agree. “God of this age” means that the god that the people of “this age” worships; with the obvious implication that it is not the true God of heaven but its opposite, which is the devil or Satan. You can be an idol worshipper without worshipping a physical statute. In modern revelation the Lord has said, “They seek not the Lord to establish his righteousness, but every man walketh in his own way, and after the image of his own god, whose image is in the likeness of the world, and whose substance is that of an idol, . . .” (D&C 1:16). In the scripture referred to above, Paul is simply saying that the people of the world are in reality worshipping the devil rather than the true God. It was not a reference to the “Hellenistic/Roman/Canaanite deity” as such; otherwise, which “pagan deities” is D&C 1:16 referring to?

Edited June 30, 2011 by zerinus

[maklelan]

The Hebrew Bible talks about true Gods as well as false gods. I believe that the true Gods are true Gods, and the false gods are false gods.

And how do you decide which are true and which are false?

I don’t claim to be a Hebrew scholar; but my understanding of the Bible is that El is used as a generic word that translates into the English equivalent of God/god (hence is can be pluralized, as in gods); whereas Jehovah/Yahweh is a proper name like John or Rob. Identifying Jehovah as El simply identifies Him as a Deity, a Supreme Being, the Most High.

El is often used in the generic sense of "god," but it was also the personal name of the Syro-Palestinian high god. Which use is in view in the Hebrew Bible is often not clear, but in some phrases, such as "El, the god of Israel" (el elohei israel - אל אלהי ישראל) it's pretty clearly being used as a personal name.

I think I would have come to the same conclusion about it that you have done. I have not followed the discussions; but you appear to have described it reasonably accurately; and I would have to agree.

These conclusions appear to be the result of simply pondering on the way these ideas fit into current dogmas and not on any actual analysis of the texts involved. I think a big mistake that both scholars and lay members make is to just assume that the impression one has of the way the scriptures function is good enough to digest whatever new ideas come our way. In this instance, it's clear that more actual looking at the texts is required. For instance, our discussion regarding 2 Kgs 3:27 (to which Rob appears to have yielded) obviously requires much more than just a priori deciding how the pericope fits into our preconceived notions about how the Bible approaches the idea of other gods.