126 replies to this topic

[Ron Beron]

altersteve, on 27 June 2011 - 01:50 PM, said:

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]

elguanteloko, on 26 June 2011 - 01:57 AM, said:

real = what exists.

Is existence a predicate?

[Robert F. Smith]

Rob Bowman, on 25 June 2011 - 11:12 AM, said:

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.

Quote

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]

Rob Bowman, on 26 June 2011 - 08:58 PM, said:

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.

Quote

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.

Quote

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.

Quote

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 by zerinus, 30 June 2011 - 06:55 AM.

[cksalmon]

Bill Hamblin, on 26 June 2011 - 12:03 PM, said:

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 by cksalmon, 29 June 2011 - 05:42 PM.

[Robert F. Smith]

cksalmon, on 29 June 2011 - 05:12 PM, said:

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]

maklelan, on 26 June 2011 - 11:26 PM, said:

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]

Rob Bowman, on 25 June 2011 - 11:12 AM, said:

All,

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

Quote

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.

Quote

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.

Quote

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.

Quote

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.

Quote

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]

Bill Hamblin, on 26 June 2011 - 12:03 PM, said:

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.

Quote

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 by zerinus, 30 June 2011 - 03:06 PM.

[maklelan]

zerinus, on 30 June 2011 - 02:32 PM, said:

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?

zerinus, on 30 June 2011 - 02:32 PM, said:

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.

zerinus, on 30 June 2011 - 02:32 PM, said:

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.

[calmoriah]

altersteve, on 27 June 2011 - 01:50 PM, said:

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.

At one time, neither was Lucifer and yet he eventually got to a point where he could be described as "evil" could he not and not just someone who did evil things?

If Lucifer can 'progress' to evilness, why can't other human beings?

[maklelan]

zerinus, on 30 June 2011 - 03:03 PM, said:

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.

While proper contextualization is an important key, you don't provide any in this comment. You simply assert that Beelzebub is nothing more than a synonym for Satan. You go on to explain the importance of understanding contemporary usage, but you don't actually provide anything whatsoever that supports what you asserted it meant contemporaneous to Christ's ministry.

zerinus, on 30 June 2011 - 03:03 PM, said:

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.

But you're reading an implication into the text that simply is not there. It does not say "the supposed/presumed/so-called god of this age." There is nothing in the text that demands an ironic reading. You're just harmonizing the text with your presuppositions regarding the gospel.

zerinus, on 30 June 2011 - 03:03 PM, said:

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?[/color]

Your argument presupposes there is total univocality linking the D&C with the New Testament. Unless you can show that such a presupposition is supported by the textual evidence, I think it needs to be set aside and the texts need to be more methodologically contextualized. Can you show your presupposition is supported by the texts?

[zerinus]

maklelan, on 30 June 2011 - 03:07 PM, said:

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

The context of the passage, as well as that of the whole Bible, enables us to infer which type of God/god it is referring to. For example, in Psalm 82:6, the context of Psalm 82, as well as the interpretation that Jesus puts on it in John 10:34–36, helps us determine that it is referring to real gods; whereas in other passages of the Bible the context makes it clear that it is referring to false gods.

Quote

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 don’t accept that "El, the god of Israel" (el elohei israel - אל אלהי ישראל) suggests that El is used as a personal name. The construction is aimed at distinguishing between the God that Israel worships (i.e. the true God), and the false gods of the heathen; rather than distinguishing a "personal God" from an "impersonal God".

Quote

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.

I prefer the Lord’s advice on how to benefit from revealed truth:

“And whoso is enlightened by the Spirit shall obtain benefit therefrom; And whoso receiveth not by the Spirit, cannot be benefited. . . .” (D&C 91:5-6).

[maklelan]

zerinus, on 30 June 2011 - 05:19 PM, said:

The context of the passage, as well as that of the whole Bible, enables us to infer which type of God/god it is referring to. For example, in Psalm 82:6, the context of Psalm 82, as well as the interpretation that Jesus puts on it in John 10:34–36, helps us determine that it is referring to real gods; whereas in other passages of the Bible the context makes it clear that it is referring to false gods.

What about the context of Psalm 82 indicates the gods are real? What about Deut 29:25; 32:8-9, 43? Are they real or false?

zerinus, on 30 June 2011 - 05:19 PM, said:

I don’t accept that "El, the god of Israel" (el elohei israel - אל אלהי ישראל) suggests that El is used as a personal name. The construction is aimed at distinguishing between the God that Israel worships (i.e. the true God), and the false gods of the heathen; rather than distinguishing a "personal God" from an "impersonal God".

Personal/impersonal has absolutely nothing to do with this. You are suggesting, then, that in Gen 33:20, when Jacob sets up the altar and names it אל אלהי ישראל, it should be translated "God, namely the God of Israel"? Tell me, why do we absolutely never find the construction אלהים אלהי ישראל? If both El and elohim are only ever generic nouns, why is the confusion only possible with El? Additionally, why does El occur without the clarification far more than it occurs with it? For someone who openly admits that they are not a Hebrew scholar, you sure have a lot of absolute judgments to pass on that scholarship.

zerinus, on 30 June 2011 - 05:19 PM, said:

I prefer the Lord’s advice on how to benefit from revealed truth:

“And whoso is enlightened by the Spirit shall obtain benefit therefrom; And whoso receiveth not by the Spirit, cannot be benefited. . . .” (D&C 91:5-6).[/color]

This is about the Apocrypha, not "how to benefit from revealed truth." Do you agree with Rob or with me regarding 2 Kgs 3:27? If you agree with Rob, why?

[zerinus]

maklelan, on 30 June 2011 - 06:49 PM, said:

What about the context of Psalm 82 indicates the gods are real?

Psalm 82:

1 God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods.
6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.
7 But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.

The highlighted passages answer that question. Verses 6 and 7 tell us who those people are whom it is referring to as “gods” in verse 1. They are mortal human beings who are nevertheless addressed as gods, by virtue of the fact that they happen to be the “children of the most High”. Compare with:

Romans 8:

16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:
17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.

Quote

What about Deut 29:25; 32:8-9, 43? Are they real or false?

I don’t know why they should be regarded as anything other than real Gods, or the real God.

Quote

Personal/impersonal has absolutely nothing to do with this. You are suggesting, then, that in Gen 33:20, when Jacob sets up the altar and names it אל אלהי ישראל, it should be translated "God, namely the God of Israel"? Tell me, why do we absolutely never find the construction אלהים אלהי ישראל? If both El and elohim are only ever generic nouns, why is the confusion only possible with El? Additionally, why does El occur without the clarification far more than it occurs with it? For someone who openly admits that they are not a Hebrew scholar, you sure have a lot of absolute judgments to pass on that scholarship.

Elohim seems to be used as a unique title for the one and only true supreme deity, whereas El is a generic word for God/god.

Quote

This is about the Apocrypha, not "how to benefit from revealed truth." Do you agree with Rob or with me regarding 2 Kgs 3:27? If you agree with Rob, why?

I believe that principle is applicable to non-apocryphal books as well.

[maklelan]

zerinus, on 30 June 2011 - 08:08 PM, said:

Psalm 82:

1 God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods.
6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.
7 But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.

The highlighted passages answer that question. Verses 6 and 7 tell us who those people are whom it is referring to as “gods” in verse 1. They are mortal human beings who are nevertheless addressed as gods, by virtue of the fact that they happen to be the “children of the most High”. Compare with:

Romans 8:

16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:
17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.

So the "sons of God" from Gen 6:2, 4, who brought on the flood were also real gods, since they fit into the same rubric outlined by Romans 8?

zerinus, on 30 June 2011 - 08:08 PM, said:

I don’t know why they should be regarded as anything other than real Gods, or the real God.

In Deut 32:8-9 they're the gods of the nations. Are you saying you believe the gods of the nations are real gods?

zerinus, on 30 June 2011 - 08:08 PM, said:

Elohim seems to be used as a unique title for the one and only true supreme deity, whereas El is a generic word for God/god.

No, as I pointed out here, the word elohim is used generically to refer to single and multiple gods besides the god of Israel, including female deities. As I said earlier, your exegesis appears more to be a priori pondering about how you think these concepts fit into your own perspective on how the scriptures work. A good look at the texts changes the story quite a bit.

zerinus, on 30 June 2011 - 08:08 PM, said:

I believe that principle is applicable to non-apocryphal books as well.

Do you have any textual basis for this, or do you just like to think of it that way?

[volgadon]

Quote

Psalm 82:

1 God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods.
6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.
7 But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.

The highlighted passages answer that question. Verses 6 and 7 tell us who those people are whom it is referring to as “gods” in verse 1. They are mortal human beings who are nevertheless addressed as gods, by virtue of the fact that they happen to be the “children of the most High”.

Your interpretation robs the text of its dramatic power. What is the point of stating that men will die like men? There is obviously a contrast presented here between their current state and future fate.

[Robert F. Smith]

Rob Bowman, on 25 June 2011 - 11:12 AM, said:

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.

Your misuse of the word "myth" here is characteristic of a particular approach to biblical scholarship which overlooks nearly everything related to biblical stories and motifs.  I think in particular of the willingness of C. S. Lewis and J. R. R. Tolkien to use the entirely valid concept of "myth" in defining the central mission of Jesus Christ as well as in the creation of their wonderful fiction -- which is so popular with evangelicals (and rightly so).

Indeed, it was precisely because of his and a colleague's discussion of the ancient and widespread myth of the dying and rising god that Lewis became a Christian:  He realized for the first time that the mythic stories were made manifest in Christ -- that it had actually happened.

Here and elsewhere in biblical scholarship, it is imperative that we examine the full, diachronic ancient Near Eastern context, including especially similar stories (creation, flood, etc.), and divine motifs and symbols.  Abraham and his descendants were not thrust onto the biblical stage tabula rasa.

[Robert F. Smith]

zerinus, on 30 June 2011 - 02:32 PM, said:

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.

I have not followed the discussions;

Jehovah is not "a proper name like John or Rob," except of course for those who read the KJV and interpret it the same way they would a Shakespearean play or the latest news in the New York Times.  Although some modern English names can be understood as hailing from some past vocation of an ancestor, most are opaque as to etymology.  In the biblical world, on the other hand, most names were taken directly from the verbal and nominal root words and were immediately understandable to ordinary people in that etymological context.  John, for example, is merely an Anglicized form of Hebrew Yohanan "Yahweh-is-Gracious."

Of the many Canaanite names and motifs for their head of pantheon, El, most are also used of the Israelite God, El.  This should be no surprise since the Israelites claimed to speak not Hebrew but Canaanite (Isa 19:18) and had a culture nearly indistinguishable from that of the Canaanites.  That El and Yahweh are used interchangeably as the "name" of the Israelite God is obvious from their use in the very same Psalms in different sections ("J" and "E") of the Psalter (Pss 14 = 53; 40 = 70, etc.).  Yet these "names" are really titles or epithets with very specific meanings.

According to Albright and Cross, the Tetragrammaton Yahweh/YHWH was "originally descriptive of 'El as patron deity of the Midianite League in the south."  Yahweh first appears in 14th & 13th century B.C. lists of Edomite toponyms in Egyptian as yhw3, to be read as ya-h-wi, or the like (cf. YHWH in the 9th cent. B.C. Moabite Mesha Stele, line 18; it also appears in the 8th cent. B.C. Khirbet el-Qom and Kuntillet Ajrud inscriptions as “Yahweh and his Asherah”).  Albright said that Yahwe derived from the verb hwy and meant “He-(Who)-Causes-to-Come-Into-Existence;It-Is-He-Who-Creates” (jussive Yahu), a form of which could also be used to mean "I-am" (Exodus 3:14, 6:3, Psalm 83:18, Isaiah 12:2 ǁ2 Nephi 22:2; Isaiah 26:4; John 8:58).  Sources on request.
I have already twice cited here my paper on "Satan: Notes on the Gods," for those who want further details.

Edited by Robert F. Smith, 01 July 2011 - 12:57 AM.

[zerinus]

maklelan, on 30 June 2011 - 08:18 PM, said:

So the "sons of God" from Gen 6:2, 4, who brought on the flood were also real gods, since they fit into the same rubric outlined by Romans 8?

I have noticed that you tend to be argumentative, and like to argue for its own sake rather than for the purpose of arriving at a mutually agreed recognized truth; and I don’t intend to waste my time on that. Suffice it to say that the context of Psalm 82 (and the interpretation that Jesus puts on it in John 10:34–36) make it quite clear that by the “gods” in that Psalm is meant mortal human beings who are nevertheless addressed as gods by virtue of the fact that they are considered the “children of the most High” (and therefore have the potential to achieve that station).

Quote

In Deut 32:8-9 they're the gods of the nations. Are you saying you believe the gods of the nations are real gods?

Deuteronomy 32:8-9 is as follows:

8 When the most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel.

9 For the Lord’s portion is his people; Jacob is the lot of his inheritance.

I don’t see how the deity mentioned in these verses is anything other than the one supreme deity who rules over Israel, and over all nations of the earth. The scriptures make it clear that there is ultimately only one God who created all men and rules over all men; and even pagan nations, or many of them, recognize the existence of one deity who is supreme over all, and therefore is the same God whether you are a Jew of a Gentile. When Paul preached to the heathen Athenians, he did not try to distinguish between their God and the Hebrew God; but preached to them as though it is the same God—which of course it is:

Acts 17:

24 God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;
25 Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things;
26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;
27 That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:
28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.
29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.

All nations regardless of their particular religious persuasion or background are able to recognize the existence of one Supreme Being who is God over all; and He is the same God whether you are a Jew, Christian, Muslim, Pagan, or whatever.

Quote

No, as I pointed out here, the word elohim is used generically to refer to single and multiple gods besides the god of Israel, including female deities. As I said earlier, your exegesis appears more to be a priori pondering about how you think these concepts fit into your own perspective on how the scriptures work. A good look at the texts changes the story quite a bit.

I agree that Elohim like El can be used generically to mean just God, but more often than not it is used to refer to the one supreme deity of heaven.

Quote

Do you have any textual basis for this, or do you just like to think of it that way?

There is no need for a “textual basis”. That meaning is implied within the text itself. But if you want a “textual basis,” there are plenty. Here is one:

“And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things” (Moroni 10:5)