126 replies to this topic

[awh204]

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.

If the gods discussed in Ps 82 are real gods, who are the gods who are condemned to die in Ps 82:7?  Clearly Ps 82:6 identifies them as בני עליון, the same class which Jesus refers to in John 10:34-36.  Would Mormons argue, in light of modern revelation (or otherwise), that they are those who followed Lucifer in rebellion?  Or would you argue that the national gods literally died by YHWH's edict?  

[awh204]

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.

If the gods discussed in Ps 82 are real gods, who are the gods who are condemned to die in Ps 82:7?  Clearly Ps 82:6 identifies them as בני עליון, the same class which Jesus refers to in John 10:34-36.  Would Mormons argue, in light of modern revelation (or otherwise), that they are those who followed Lucifer in rebellion?  Or would you argue that the national gods literally died by YHWH's edict?  

[LeSellers]

awh204, on 01 July 2011 - 10:15 AM, said:

If the gods discussed in Ps 82 are real gods, who are the gods who are condemned to die in Ps 82:7?  Clearly Ps 82:6 identifies them as בני עליון, the same class which Jesus refers to in John 10:34-36.  Would Mormons argue, in light of modern revelation (or otherwise), that they are those who followed Lucifer in rebellion?  

The Psalm itself answers the question and Jesus elaborates (by implication).

We (all mankind, not just us Saints) are the gods of Ps 82. Or, more specifically, the Jews/Israelites to whom it was specifically addressed were. But, since they no less nor any more than us were in the Grand Council, it was, by extension, all of us who would become inhabitants of this earth.

Jesus used this verse/passage to show that the Jews of His day were inconsistent for charging Him with blasphemy because He had called Himself "God", yet they believed that God, through David (aIr) had said that all mankind were gods. No other explanation makes any sense in the context of Jesus' being called a blasphemer.

"What is man that Thou art mindful of him ... for Thou hast made him a little lower than the gods" is what the Hebrew says. "Man" is us, and we are a "little lower than the gods" because we are mortal and They are immortal.

Lehi

[awh204]

LeSellers, on 01 July 2011 - 10:31 AM, said:

The Psalm itself answers the question and Jesus elaborates (by implication).

We (all mankind, not just us Saints) are the gods of Ps 82. Or, more specifically, the Jews/Israelites to whom it was specifically addressed were. But, since they no less nor any more than us were in the Grand Council, it was, by extension, all of us who would become inhabitants of this earth.

Are you therefore saying that this psalm is addressed at Israelites (called "gods" here)?  Verse 8 makes it clear that that God (YHWH) will possess the nations which the other gods originally owned.  This psalm is a condemnation of foreign gods for their failure to act appropriately.  Their punishment is death.  In-of-itself nothing in this psalm assumes YHWH is addressing humans (specifically Israelites).  This is not a judicial council of the pre-existence.  The psalm probably dates to around the exile, and is probably a reaction to it.  YHWH receives political kingship of the nations.

[maklelan]

zerinus, on 01 July 2011 - 03:09 AM, said:

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;

I am argumentative in the interest of an honest and objective analysis of the texts. If that leads to disagreement then it leads to disagreement.

zerinus, on 01 July 2011 - 03:09 AM, said:

and I don’t intend to waste my time on that.

Nor do I.

zerinus, on 01 July 2011 - 03:09 AM, said:

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).

There is absolutely nothing in the context of Psalm 82 that at all indicates the gods are human beings. The contrast between their nature and the nature of their death absolutely precludes the notion that they are human beings. The only thing that substantiates your reading is Jesus' reading, and if you have to import a tradition from centuries after the fact in order to try to assert a specific original reading then you're fighting a losing battle. My paper at this year's Latter-day Saints and the Bible session at SBL will be on exactly this topic.

zerinus, on 01 July 2011 - 03:09 AM, said:

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.[/color]

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.

You're reading the Masoretic version. Here's how the original version read, according to the Dead Sea Scrolls and the witness of the Septuagint:

Quote

When Elyon divided to the nations their inheritance--when he separated the sons of man--he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the sons of God; and Yahweh's portion is his people; Jacob is his allotted share.

Your reading is the result of the manipulation of the text from centuries after it was written.

zerinus, on 01 July 2011 - 03:09 AM, said:

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:[/color]

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.[/color]

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.

So can you respond to the problem with 2 Kgs 3:27, where the Moabite god is shown to overpower the Israelite forces who were promised military victory by Yahweh?

zerinus, on 01 July 2011 - 03:09 AM, said:

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.

And context is all that determines that. The word itself simply means "god," and nothing more. Additionally, El is used as a personal name in Syro-Palestinian literature, including the Hebrew Bible.

zerinus, on 01 July 2011 - 03:09 AM, said:

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)

So you're saying you've prayed about each of the texts I've brought up, and specifically 2 Kgs 3:27, and have received confirmation that your reading is true, or only that you feel that how ever you assume they're to be read is true and that you can assume you're being inspired by the Spirit?

[LeSellers]

awh204, on 01 July 2011 - 11:00 AM, said:

Are you therefore saying that this psalm is addressed at Israelites (called "gods" here)?  

I'm sorry I do not have the time to address this as I should, but in essence, yes.

Your position fails to consider the use Jesus made of this very passage when He was confronted with the charge of blasphemy. Since He was the One Who inspired David to write this hymn, we must assume he knew its meaning best.

He clearly tells the I Jews that they all (including Himself) were gods. Any other explanation fails on those grounds alone.

Further, most Christian commentators recognize that the "eloheim" spoken of here are men. However, they claim (erroneously) that the word is "judges" (which is not at all what the Hebrew actually says, but they have their own agenda) or "rulers [of the Jews}". And, since they will "die like men", it is obvious that no interpretation could make this apply to false gods or even to true ones, since the former don't exist and hence cannot die, and the latter cannot die in any case.

The only way Jesus could use this passage as a defense (and one that worked, btw, because it was rational) is if the eloheim were, in fact, the human race in the Grand Council.

God said, "Ye are gods." Jesus quoted it with this meaning, and I can't see any reason to contradict Him.

Lehi
P.S.:
I just noticed that you have not been here long, so please let me introduce a shorthand I am accustomed to. I use upper case roman numerals for ordinal numbers ("I"=first, "II"=second, etc.) and most often to refer to centuries as I did when I said "I Jews". I meant "first century Jews". If the roman numerals are lower case, I mean centuries before Christ, e.g., "v" is the period from 500~401 BC.

I hope this will reduce any confusion over the matter. LS

Edited by LeSellers, 01 July 2011 - 11:23 AM.

[zerinus]

maklelan, on 01 July 2011 - 11:05 AM, said:

So can you respond to the problem with 2 Kgs 3:27, where the Moabite god is shown to overpower the Israelite forces who were promised military victory by Yahweh?

I read those verses, which are as follows:

2 Kings 3:

26 And when the king of Moab saw that the battle was too sore for him, he took with him seven hundred men that drew swords, to break through even unto the king of Edom: but they could not.
27 Then he took his eldest son that should have reigned in his stead, and offered him for a burnt offering upon the wall. And there was great indignation against Israel: and they departed from him, and returned to their own land.

I don’t read into those verses what you are reading into them. I don’t know how you come to the conclusion you do concerning those verses.

It also looks like I had missed the following question you had asked in post #54:

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

Do you agree with Rob or with me regarding 2 Kgs 3:27? If you agree with Rob, why?

I haven’t followed your discussion with Rob on this subject, so I don’t know what you are referring to here. If you would give me a brief rundown of your exchanges with him on this subject, I will try to answer.

Quote

So you're saying you've prayed about each of the texts I've brought up, and specifically 2 Kgs 3:27, and have received confirmation that your reading is true, or only that you feel that how ever you assume they're to be read is true and that you can assume you're being inspired by the Spirit?

You are now being argumentative and silly. I had quoted you D&C 91:5–6, with the suggestion that the principle of it was applicable to more than just the Apocrypha. Then you asked for a “textual basis” for that claim, and I quoted Moroni 10:5, “And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things,” as an example. That does not mean that you have to “pray about it”. If you have the Holy Ghost, then you can discern truth from error without having to “pray about it”.

[cksalmon]

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

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.

Hey Rob,

Have you read Michael Heiser's dissertation, The Divine Council in Late Canonical and Non-Canonical Second Temple Jewish Literature? If so, what are your thoughts, in a nutshell?

I don't necessarily disagree with what you've written above. I also don't think we should be squeamish just because The Mormons are rather overenthusiastic about the subject.

Just curious.

Best.

cks

[cksalmon]

LeSellers, on 01 July 2011 - 11:14 AM, said:

I'm sorry I do not have the time to address this as I should, but in essence, yes.

Your position fails to consider the use Jesus made of this very passage when He was confronted with the charge of blasphemy. Since He was the One Who inspired David to write this hymn, we must assume he knew its meaning best.

He clearly tells the I Jews that they all (including Himself) were gods. Any other explanation fails on those grounds alone.

Wow.

[maklelan]

zerinus, on 01 July 2011 - 12:44 PM, said:

I read those verses, which are as follows:

2 Kings 3:

26 And when the king of Moab saw that the battle was too sore for him, he took with him seven hundred men that drew swords, to break through even unto the king of Edom: but they could not.
27 Then he took his eldest son that should have reigned in his stead, and offered him for a burnt offering upon the wall. And there was great indignation against Israel: and they departed from him, and returned to their own land.

I don’t read into those verses what you are reading into them. I don’t know how you come to the conclusion you do concerning those verses.

I'm not reading anything into the verses. I'm unpacking what the words mean and what the context indicates. The word you have translated "indignation" is ketsef, which in Hebrew refers almost always to divine wrath, usually from Yahweh. Once it refers metaphorically to the foam of the sea as "wrath," and twice it refers to wrath in general. It's most common use is in reference to a deity's wrath against a group of people. We must understand 2 Kgs 3:27 to refer to some kind of divine wrath overcoming the Israelite forces, causing them to retreat. Where did it come from? There's no reason at all to believe it came from Yahweh. Nothing in the text justifies that reading. Looking at the clause immediately preceding the statement, though, we see that Mesha offered his firstborn son as a sacrifice upon the wall of the city. Obviously the sacrifice was offered to the Moabite national deity, Chemosh. It was very common in the ancient Near East to sacrifice something of great importance upon the wall of the city during a siege to petition the protection of a deity. Look at 1 Sam 7:9-10. Samuel offered a burnt offering as the Philistines attacked and Yahweh routed their forces. The following is drawn from this blog post. From an Ugaritic text:

Quote

If an enemy force attacks your [city-]gates,
An aggressor, your walls;
You shall lift up your eyes to Baal [and pray]:
“O Baal:
Drive away the [enemy] force from our gates,
The aggressor from our walls.
We shall sacrifice a bull [to thee], O Baal,
A votive-pledge we shall fulfill:
A firstborn,
Baal, we shall sacrifice,
A child
we shall fulfill [as votive-pledge].
A ‘tenth’ [of all our wealth] we shall tithe [thee],
To the temple of Baal we shall go up,
In the footpaths of the House-of-Baal we shall walk.”
Then shall Baal hearken to your prayers,
He shall drive the [enemy] force from your gates,
The aggressor from your walls.

Quote

Diodorus of Sicily (ca. 50 BCE) writes that “in Sicily the Carthaginians . . . were besieging Syracuse, but in Libya Agathocles had brought the Carthaginians under siege—the Carthaginians betook themselves to every manner of supplication of the divine powers . . . they sent a large sum of money and . . . expensive offerings to Tyre . . . when they . . . saw their enemy encamped before their walls . . . they selected two hundred of the noblest children and sacrificed them publicly.”

Quote

The Roman historian Quintus Curtius Rufus (ca. 50 CE) records an episode in which the “Canaanite” city of Tyre was under siege by Alexander the Great. The citizens were expecting military aid from the west, but this was not forthcoming. They then considered emergency measures. According to Rufus: “Some . . . proposed renewing a sacrifice which had been discontinued for many years (multis saeculis intermissum) . . . of offering a freeborn boy (ingenuus puer) to Saturn—this sacrifice, handed down from their founders, the Carthaginians are said to have performed until the destruction of their city—and unless the elders . . . had opposed it, the awful superstition would have prevailed over mercy.”

Obviously Mesha was doing what many did back then. He was asking for his god to save the city from the Israelite/Edomite coalition

zerinus, on 01 July 2011 - 12:44 PM, said:

It also looks like I had missed the following question you had asked in post #54:

I haven’t followed your discussion with Rob on this subject, so I don’t know what you are referring to here. If you would give me a brief rundown of your exchanges with him on this subject, I will try to answer.

See above.

zerinus, on 01 July 2011 - 12:44 PM, said:

You are now being argumentative and silly. I had quoted you D&C 91:5–6, with the suggestion that the principle of it was applicable to more than just the Apocrypha. Then you asked for a “textual basis” for that claim, and I quoted Moroni 10:5, “And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things,” as an example. That does not mean that you have to “pray about it”. If you have the Holy Ghost, then you can discern truth from error without having to “pray about it”.

So as you read the Bible you just automatically know what's true, what's false, and what is the correct interpretation, without having to know a thing about the context or the history?

[jo1952]

I haven't read every post on this thread so I hope my following comment isn't something already stated.

There is a distinction which needs to be understood between a "false" god and a "real" god.  A false god is a real god who is lying or dishonest or wrong or unjust or unrighteous, etc.  I don't have time to show each Hebrew definition or application.  In essence, however, this should suffice.  Now, with this distinction in mind, it is easier to see that Satan is currently called the god of the earth, but is NOT "the" god whom we are to worship.  He definitely is "real"; but, he is "false" - especially inasmuch as he is also the father of lies.  

When we are taught not to have any other gods before the Lord God (Christ), certainly Satan was one of the many real gods we should not set at a place higher than we place the Lord God.  Since all of mankind are gods, there is danger that idolizing or worshipping any man or woman would also break this commandment.  While we are in the flesh, I suppose we could call ourselves false gods since we still lie, are dishonest, are wrong, are unjust, and are unrighteous.  Nevertheless, we are still real gods, even though we are unable to manifest our own god powers.  We can, however, through the power and authority of the True God (Christ) through the Holy Priesthood and through faith, manifest Heavenly Father's powers - but must always give Him the glory and credit for those powers. We should not confuse any of this with the fact that we are to recognize and worship Heavenly Father, who is the Father of Christ and also the God of Christ.  In fact, here in the flesh, we don't even know what it will look like for us to be the real gods that we are.  We do not know if we will ever have any of our own powers; or if we will only always be able to manifest the Most High God's powers.  Even Jesus never claimed to use any powers other than His Father's.  We are taught to pray to our Father in Heaven (the Most High God) in the name of Jesus Christ (The Creator and the God we are to recognize as the God of our world).  For the purposes of who the God and Creator of our world is, Christ is our God.  The Most High God, therefore, would be Christ's Father and God, who is also our Father and Most High God.  Meanwhile, even though Satan is considered the god of the earth until the Deed to the earth is given to Christ (see Revelation where only Christ had the power and authority to take the sealed scroll from Father's hand), Satan should never be worshipped.  

When the antichrist stands in the Holy of Holies and performs the Desolation of Abomination, please note that his claim to "be God" will be a false claim, as only Jesus has that right (see Mat 24:15).  

When we do what Father wants us to do, we are Christ-like, at which time we are "true" gods as opposed to being a "false" god.  But we are still real gods nonetheless.  Choosing good over evil allows us to not only be serving the True God, we also are a true god.  But if we choose evil, we cease serving the True God, and also become a false god.  Interesting way to see it.  

Scripture certainly can become a huge mine field if we try to focus too long and hard at every jot and tittle without remembering to keep our minds wide open so that the Holy Ghost can get a word in edgewise.  

This short comment does not approach the subject of "not real" gods - such as inanimate objects, etc....

Regards,

jo

[zerinus]

maklelan, on 01 July 2011 - 08:20 PM, said:

I'm not reading anything into the verses. I'm unpacking what the words mean and what the context indicates. The word you have translated "indignation" is ketsef, which in Hebrew refers almost always to divine wrath, usually from Yahweh. Once it refers metaphorically to the foam of the sea as "wrath," and twice it refers to wrath in general. It's most common use is in reference to a deity's wrath against a group of people. We must understand 2 Kgs 3:27 to refer to some kind of divine wrath overcoming the Israelite forces, causing them to retreat. Where did it come from? There's no reason at all to believe it came from Yahweh. Nothing in the text justifies that reading. Looking at the clause immediately preceding the statement, though, we see that Mesha offered his firstborn son as a sacrifice upon the wall of the city. Obviously the sacrifice was offered to the Moabite national deity, Chemosh. It was very common in the ancient Near East to sacrifice something of great importance upon the wall of the city during a siege to petition the protection of a deity. Look at 1 Sam 7:9-10. Samuel offered a burnt offering as the Philistines attacked and Yahweh routed their forces. The following is drawn from this blog post. From an Ugaritic text:


Obviously Mesha was doing what many did back then. He was asking for his god to save the city from the Israelite/Edomite coalition

I think you are misinterpreting that chapter. You are focusing on the definition of an obscure word, and overlooking the obvious sense of what the rest of the Chapter says. Allow me to summarize it for you. This chapter tells the story of three kings: the kings of Israel, Judea, and Edom, joining forces to attack the kingdom of Moab, which had previously been tributary to the kingdom of Israel, but had rebelled against it and refused to pay further tribute (verses 1–8 ). Then they encounter a problem, a shortage of water for their numerous army in the middle of a dry wilderness (verse 10). Then they decide to inquire of the Lord, by means of the prophet Elisha, who instructs them what to do so that God would miraculously provide water for their armies (verses 11–17). Then he makes this prophecy about how they will be victorious in their campaign:

18 And this is but a light thing in the sight of the Lord: he will deliver the Moabites also into your hand.
19 And ye shall smite every fenced city, and every choice city, and shall fell every good tree, and stop all wells of water, and mar every good piece of land with stones.

Then all of Elisha’s prophecies become fulfilled. Not only is water miraculously provided for their armies, but the army becomes victorious, as Elisha had predicted:

24 And when they came to the camp of Israel, the Israelites rose up and smote the Moabites, so that they fled before them: but they went forward smiting the Moabites, even in their country.
25 And they beat down the cities, and on every good piece of land cast every man his stone, and filled it; and they stopped all the wells of water, and felled all the good trees: only in Kir-haraseth left they the stones thereof; howbeit the slingers went about it, and smote it.

And finally, after all of that, we have this obscure verse (the last verse in the chapter) which you are focusing on:

27 Then he took his eldest son that should have reigned in his stead, and offered him for a burnt offering upon the wall. And there was great indignation against Israel: and they departed from him, and returned to their own land.

It is obvious that you are misinterpreting this verse. You are ignoring what it says the rest of the chapter, and focusing on an obscurity in the last verse. As the previous verses show very clearly, the prophecy of Elisha was fulfilled. Jehovah not only miraculously provided water for the entire army, He gave the army complete victory over Moab, as predicted by Elisha. His prediction about the victory of the army was completely fulfilled, as shown in the previous verses. Verse 27 is simply an obscure passage which doesn’t explain very clearly what happened. It says “there was great indignation” against Israel; but it doesn’t say what that indignation was, and where it came from. The main point is that the coalition armies were fully victorious, as prophesied. Therefore your argument, which suggests otherwise, falls down.

Quote

See above.

Well you didn’t tell me what arguments Rob had put forward, so I can’t compare the two. But he would have been right to have disagreed with you; whether with the right arguments, and for the right reasons or not, I wouldn’t know.

Quote

So as you read the Bible you just automatically know what's true, what's false, and what is the correct interpretation, . . .

Of course. The Spirit testifies to me that the Bible as a whole is true, and there is very little in it that might be false or incorrect. I don’t claim to have the kind of revelation that Joseph Smith had, which enabled him to correct some of the errors and supply many missing parts; but I don’t need to be able to do that in order to know that the Bible as a whole is true; and if there are any scribal errors in it, it is not such that it would prevent me from extracting correct doctrine from it with the help of the Spirit of the Lord.

Quote

. . . without having to know a thing about the context or the history?

Of course not! The Bible provides its own context and history, which aids its correct interpretation. You don’t need to go much further afield for that purpose. Modern revelation also supplies many vital clues and missing parts. That is all that the gospel scholar needs to extract correct theology and the saving doctrines of the gospel which God has seen fit to reveal in our time.

[Mike Richards]

This is a bit of a thread derail and if there's interest, I can start a different topic on it...

Is there anything in LDS doctrine that specifically precludes the gods mentioned in the Bible from being pre-mortal (non-Lucifer-following...1/3) spirits?  The scenario could go something like this: just as Jehovah (LDS naming convention) attained Godhood in the pre-mortal life, others progressed to the point of Godhood themselves.  These (including Jehovah) were assigned as gods to watch over the nations with a promise to all but Jehovah that, if they fulfilled their assignments, they would be granted certain things in their mortal lives, including being translated--not dieing.  Pride over came them.  They inspired people to worship them instead of the true God and commit other sins.  In doing so, they failed to fulfill their duties.  Their assignments were turned over to Jehovah.  They lost their promises, and were condemned to die like men.

A little strange, I know, but it seems to work for me...

[maklelan]

zerinus, on 01 July 2011 - 11:14 PM, said:

I think you are misinterpreting that chapter. You are focusing on the definition of an obscure word, and overlooking the obvious sense of what the rest of the Chapter says.

In other words, don't pay attention to the words in the one verse I'm interested in, just pay attention to the other words and try to get a gist for what the rest of the chapter is saying? Is that really how you think it's best to exegete a single verse of scripture?

zerinus, on 01 July 2011 - 11:14 PM, said:

Allow me to summarize it for you. This chapter tells the story of three kings: the kings of Israel, Judea, and Edom, joining forces to attack the kingdom of Moab, which had previously been tributary to the kingdom of Israel, but had rebelled against it and refused to pay further tribute (verses 1–8 ). Then they encounter a problem, a shortage of water for their numerous army in the middle of a dry wilderness (verse 10). Then they decide to inquire of the Lord, by means of the prophet Elisha, who instructs them what to do so that God would miraculously provide water for their armies (verses 11–17). Then he makes this prophecy about how they will be victorious in their campaign:[/color]

18 And this is but a light thing in the sight of the Lord: he will deliver the Moabites also into your hand.
19 And ye shall smite every fenced city, and every choice city, and shall fell every good tree, and stop all wells of water, and mar every good piece of land with stones.

Then all of Elisha’s prophecies become fulfilled. Not only is water miraculously provided for their armies, but the army becomes victorious, as Elisha had predicted:

No, this is not true. Elisha did not promise that they would be mostly victorious, he promised that the Moabites would be delivered into Israelite hands. This means the Israelites would exercise unmitigated dominion over the Moabites. That what that phrase always means. You're trying hard to make the prophecy fit, but it simply does not. The Moabite king remained safe within his city and the Israelite forces were run off. That's not having the Moabites delivered into their hands, no matter how many different ways you try to parse the campaign.

zerinus, on 01 July 2011 - 11:14 PM, said:

24 And when they came to the camp of Israel, the Israelites rose up and smote the Moabites, so that they fled before them: but they went forward smiting the Moabites, even in their country.
25 And they beat down the cities, and on every good piece of land cast every man his stone, and filled it; and they stopped all the wells of water, and felled all the good trees: only in Kir-haraseth left they the stones thereof; howbeit the slingers went about it, and smote it.

And finally, after all of that, we have this obscure verse (the last verse in the chapter) which you are focusing on:

27 Then he took his eldest son that should have reigned in his stead, and offered him for a burnt offering upon the wall. And there was great indignation against Israel: and they departed from him, and returned to their own land.

[color="#8B0000"]It is obvious that you are misinterpreting this verse.

Of course it is.

zerinus, on 01 July 2011 - 11:14 PM, said:

You are ignoring what it says the rest of the chapter,

The rest of the chapter has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on what this clause says.

zerinus, on 01 July 2011 - 11:14 PM, said:

and focusing on an obscurity in the last verse. As the previous verses show very clearly, the prophecy of Elisha was fulfilled.

No, the prophecy of Elisha was not fulfilled. The Moabites were not delivered into the hands of the Israelites. This last verse unequivocally shows that the prophecy was not fulfilled. You are so flagrantly begging the question that I am finding it difficult to believe you're being serious.  

zerinus, on 01 July 2011 - 11:14 PM, said:

Jehovah not only miraculously provided water for the entire army, He gave the army complete victory over Moab, as predicted by Elisha.

There's no complete victory when your army is run off at the walls of the city you're trying to conquer. It's really as simple as that.

zerinus, on 01 July 2011 - 11:14 PM, said:

His prediction about the victory of the army was completely fulfilled, as shown in the previous verses. Verse 27 is simply an obscure passage which doesn’t explain very clearly what happened. It says “there was great indignation” against Israel; but it doesn’t say what that indignation was, and where it came from. The main point is that the coalition armies were fully victorious, as prophesied. Therefore your argument, which suggests otherwise, falls down.

The prophecy was that the Moabites would be delivered into Israelite hands. 2 Kgs 3:24-26 says they were going along winning their battles, but then v. 27 says they were run off without taking the main city where the Moabite king was stationed. I simply refuse to believe that you honestly think that that verse is inconsequential, and that the previous verses show the complete fulfillment of the prophecy.

zerinus, on 01 July 2011 - 11:14 PM, said:

[color="#8B0000"]Well you didn’t tell me what arguments Rob had put forward, so I can’t compare the two. But he would have been right to have disagreed with you; whether with the right arguments, and for the right reasons or not, I wouldn’t know.

So far no one has provided a remotely rational argument against my reading, and the notion that the verse where the Israelite forces are run off while besieging a city is an afterthought that does not bear on the question of whether or not the prophecy was fulfilled which promised the Moabites would be delivered into Israelite hands is nowhere near sufficient.

zerinus, on 01 July 2011 - 11:14 PM, said:

Of course. The Spirit testifies to me that the Bible as a whole is true, and there is very little in it that might be false or incorrect. I don’t claim to have the kind of revelation that Joseph Smith had, which enabled him to correct some of the errors and supply many missing parts; but I don’t need to be able to do that in order to know that the Bible as a whole is true; and if there are any scribal errors in it, it is not such that it would prevent me from extracting correct doctrine from it with the help of the Spirit of the Lord.

There's no use reasoning with this kind of fundamentalism, and I'm not going to waste my time.

[jo1952]

mjr522, on 01 July 2011 - 11:33 PM, said:

This is a bit of a thread derail and if there's interest, I can start a different topic on it...

Is there anything in LDS doctrine that specifically precludes the gods mentioned in the Bible from being pre-mortal (non-Lucifer-following...1/3) spirits?  The scenario could go something like this: just as Jehovah (LDS naming convention) attained Godhood in the pre-mortal life, others progressed to the point of Godhood themselves.  These (including Jehovah) were assigned as gods to watch over the nations with a promise to all but Jehovah that, if they fulfilled their assignments, they would be granted certain things in their mortal lives, including being translated--not dieing.  Pride over came them.  They inspired people to worship them instead of the true God and commit other sins.  In doing so, they failed to fulfill their duties.  Their assignments were turned over to Jehovah.  They lost their promises, and were condemned to die like men.

A little strange, I know, but it seems to work for me...

I'll take a stab at this.  It is my understanding that everyone ever organized from Intelligence and spiritually born of the Most High God are born into what is called their first estate.  IOW, if they exist as spirits, they have been given their first estate.  I suppose you could connect this word "estate" to "inheritance" in order to understand it better.  Now, this would include everyone who participated in the Grand Council held in Heaven before the foundation of the world.  

It was during this council, the purpose of which was to lay out the Plan of Salvation and to determine who would be made/assigned the Savior of our world.  This is when Lucifer and his followers defied the Most High God in that Satan wanted to do things his way (not Father's way), and wanted the Glory for doing it; whereas Jesus wanted to do things Father's way and give Glory to the Father.  Now, those who did not want to do Father's will were cast out of Father's presence (this would be the Celestial kingdom of Heaven where the Most High God dwells) because, inasmuch as Lucifer did not want to be "one" with Father - due to his wanting to not only do things his way but to also receive the glory for it, thus placing himself higher than Father, this sin caused him to be unable to any longer be in Father's presence (no unclean thing can be in the presence of the Father).

Now, because Lucifer (later to be known as Satan) and a third of the hosts of Heaven followed Lucifer, by being cast out of the Celestial Kingdom, they lost what could have been theirs.  That is, their "second" estate (or inheritance), which is the receiving of a physical body.  They will never be able to receive a physical body.  This second estate of receiving a physical body is  necessary in order to be able to receive the inheritances which have been prepared and may still be in the process of being prepared for those who achieve them through their choices and actions they make while they are in their second estate.  So, anyone who in born on the earth is automatically receiving their second estate, or form of inheritance, which is preparatory for receiving their heavenly inheritances.  

Thus, Satan and his followers, because they never receive their second estate, are frustrated and stopped from being able to inherit anything more than what they had already received in their first estate.  Also, since they cannot enter the Celestial Kingdom due to their uncleanness, they have lost all rights and priveleges associated with being in the presence of the Most High God (Heavenly Father).

Everyone who enters their second estate is in danger of not doing well here.  The memory of our first estate existence has been closed to our minds by the "veil".  The veil is a spiritual wall or curtain which prevents us, while we are in the flesh, from remembering any of our existence prior to our physical worldly "time" in our mortal body.  It is due to the breaking of the very first commandment ever given to man that all of mankind must now die.  Their physical body is mortal.  This is, however, all part of the plan of Salvation.  I would say that the very fear of physical death (and since the veil prevents us from remembering our existence as spirits before we came to the earth), the fear of physical death to most people appears to be a permanent end to their existence in any realm.  However, we are eternal.  The time we spend in our second estate in our body of flesh is merely a very small amount of our eternal existence.  

As for those who love and keep the commandments so perfectly that they find the favor of God to be translated and thus avoid the typical physical death of all other mortals, do experience a very quick change from mortality to immortality which is described in terms such as "in the twinkling of an eye".  Therefore, they technically do experience a change in their physical being from mortal to immortal.  They are the exception; not the rule.  As far as those of us in our second estate not doing what we promised to do (i.e., "Their assignments were turned over to Jehovah."), I have not heard about this concept other than we all knew we agreed to come here and take our chances due to the incredible inheritances which coming to the earth would qualify us for.  I see this all as part of our progression from god children evolving into god adults; part of the perfection we must experience in order to become better at being gods since we are the spiritual sons and daughters of the Most High God.  

Now, we do know that there is an heirarchy among Celestial beings which are achieved either before, during, or after, our second estate.  Mostly, I think this takes places before we receive our second estate.  The two obvious ones that come to mind are the distinctions made between angels and arch-angels (like Michael, Gabriel, and Lucifer).  However, as we know, Lucifer (even though he was an arch-angel) has fallen.  I do not know many details about this, or even if there is much information that is available concerning it.  We do believe that when Michael received his second estate, that he was the first to do so, and is also known as Adam.  Once he lost his physical body due to mortality, he then resumed his responsibilities as the arch-angel Michael.

I may not have this all technically recorded correctly; but I think I have the gist of it.  Hope this helps.

Regards,

jo

[volgadon]

Quote

You are focusing on the definition of an obscure word,

Ketsef is hardly an obscure word. It occurs enough times in a certain context for us to understand what it means. If it is such an obscure word then we must decide that the other instances in the Bible are not refering to YHWH's wrath, but to something completely unknown. Now that is silly.

[Mike Richards]

jo1952, on 02 July 2011 - 06:26 AM, said:

I'll take a stab at this.  ....

Thanks for the response, jo.  I suppose I should have been more explicit in what I was asking.  I'm familiar with the plan as you've laid it out.  I am wondering if there is anything that we know that would preclude the following from being true:

1. Other (besides Jehovah) pre-mortal spirits attained "godhood" prior to experiencing their second estate.  (I understand that defining "godhood" is problematic, but let's just use a generic idea of a being who can cause super-natural occurrences)

2. Elohim assigned these gods to be stewards of various nations

3. These gods failed to righteously fulfill their stewardships and were punished by losing some special privileged that avoided "dieing like men"

I guess I'm suggesting that our knowledge about pre-mortal existence is sufficiently limited to allow a great deal of flexibility in guessing how things might have happened.  As you pointed out, for example, we understand that there was some sort of hierarchy--but we don't know much about it.  The scriptures seem to indicate that there have been more than one divine council--some of which clearly happened after the earth was populated.  If so, and if I understand the purpose of the council correctly, then it seems to me that some of the participants are very much gods and they do interact with people.  

So, with this understanding, I personally wouldn't have any problem with the gods of the Hebrew bible being real gods, unless someone can show me how something I've suggested is not possible.

[zerinus]

maklelan, on 02 July 2011 - 12:05 AM, said:

In other words, don't pay attention to the words in the one verse I'm interested in, just pay attention to the other words and try to get a gist for what the rest of the chapter is saying? Is that really how you think it's best to exegete a single verse of scripture?



No, this is not true. Elisha did not promise that they would be mostly victorious, he promised that the Moabites would be delivered into Israelite hands. This means the Israelites would exercise unmitigated dominion over the Moabites. That what that phrase always means. You're trying hard to make the prophecy fit, but it simply does not. The Moabite king remained safe within his city and the Israelite forces were run off. That's not having the Moabites delivered into their hands, no matter how many different ways you try to parse the campaign.



Of course it is.



The rest of the chapter has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on what this clause says.



No, the prophecy of Elisha was not fulfilled. The Moabites were not delivered into the hands of the Israelites. This last verse unequivocally shows that the prophecy was not fulfilled. You are so flagrantly begging the question that I am finding it difficult to believe you're being serious.  



There's no complete victory when your army is run off at the walls of the city you're trying to conquer. It's really as simple as that.



The prophecy was that the Moabites would be delivered into Israelite hands. 2 Kgs 3:24-26 says they were going along winning their battles, but then v. 27 says they were run off without taking the main city where the Moabite king was stationed. I simply refuse to believe that you honestly think that that verse is inconsequential, and that the previous verses show the complete fulfillment of the prophecy.



So far no one has provided a remotely rational argument against my reading, and the notion that the verse where the Israelite forces are run off while besieging a city is an afterthought that does not bear on the question of whether or not the prophecy was fulfilled which promised the Moabites would be delivered into Israelite hands is nowhere near sufficient.



There's no use reasoning with this kind of fundamentalism, and I'm not going to waste my time.

To me it is obvious that you are forcing an interpretation on these scriptures that the context does not permit. It is clear that Elisha predicted a victory for the Israelites against Moab that was completely realized. Your disproportionate focus on 2 Kings 3:27, and disregard of the context of the rest of the chapter, give you a distorted picture of the events. Your reading of that verse that “God” (especially the Moabite god) had “indignation” against Israel is not warranted by the context. God is the only being that can have “indignation”. Man can as well. In that context, it is a more reasonable to read that it were the Moabites that had “indignation” against Israel. As for the circumstances of Israel turning away from Moab, the verse is simply to obscure to explain. The most logical reading is that the Israelites felt that they had accomplished their purpose, won their victory, therefore there was no need to continue the fight. The army was defeated in battle, and Elisha’s prophecy had been fulfilled to the letter. End of the story. “Deliver into thy hand” is a common expression used in the Bible meaning to gain victory in battle; and it is perfectly clear that the Israelites had obtained that victory, and the Moabites had been the losers, as Elisha had predicted. Your argument is flawed. You are fighting a lost cause. One should be willing to admit defeat in an argument, and not discredit oneself more by continuing to fight a losing battle.

[maklelan]

zerinus, on 02 July 2011 - 01:55 PM, said:

To me it is obvious that you are forcing an interpretation on these scriptures that the context does not permit.

If you can't show that to be the case, though, it doesn't really matter how obvious it is to you. I have explained the context quite clearly and I have explained why your reading does not fit the context or the meaning of the relevant words. So far all you have provided in the way of evidence is the assertion that the Holy Ghost told you so.

zerinus, on 02 July 2011 - 01:55 PM, said:

It is clear that Elisha predicted a victory for the Israelites against Moab that was completely realized.

When your army is run off from a city you're trying to conquer so that you can renew a state of vassalage that a nation abandoned after the death of the previous king, you have not effected a military victory. As I said before, it is as simple as that. It doesn't matter if you destroyed all the other cities and put holes in the wall of the city the king is in if you do not renew the vassalage, the king is not captured, and your army is run off. I don't know how to make this any clearer, nor do I know how to respond to what amounts to little more than "Nu-uh!"

zerinus, on 02 July 2011 - 01:55 PM, said:

Your disproportionate focus on 2 Kings 3:27, and disregard of the context of the rest of the chapter, give you a distorted picture of the events.

You cannot disregard the concluding verse of the entire pericope, especially when it contains the outcome of the entire military campaign (which was failure).

zerinus, on 02 July 2011 - 01:55 PM, said:

Your reading of that verse that “God” (especially the Moabite god) had “indignation” against Israel is not warranted by the context. God is the only being that can have “indignation”

This is nowhere to be found in the Bible. This is a dogma that you are imposing on the text. This is eisegesis that you're performing; that is, rather than getting the meaning out of the text (exegesis), you're putting a meaning into the text.

zerinus, on 02 July 2011 - 01:55 PM, said:

Man can as well. In that context, it is a more reasonable to read that it were the Moabites that had “indignation” against Israel.

The word is never used to mean that. You cannot argue that this bizarre contextualization upon which you insist actually gives that word a meaning it never had.  

zerinus, on 02 July 2011 - 01:55 PM, said:

As for the circumstances of Israel turning away from Moab, the verse is simply to obscure to explain.

No it's not. It's crystal clear. Mesha sacrificed his son. Divine wrath overcame the Israelites. They turned around and took off.

zerinus, on 02 July 2011 - 01:55 PM, said:

The most logical reading is that the Israelites felt that they had accomplished their purpose, won their victory, therefore there was no need to continue the fight. The army was defeated in battle, and Elisha’s prophecy had been fulfilled to the letter. End of the story. “Deliver into thy hand” is a common expression used in the Bible meaning to gain victory in battle;

You do not have victory in battle if the catcher knocks you out two feet in front of home plate. They simply failed to renew Mesha's vassalage and were run off from the city in which he was stationed. That is not victory in battle in any corner of the universe, and no amount of "Nu-uh"s can change that.  

zerinus, on 02 July 2011 - 01:55 PM, said:

and it is perfectly clear that the Israelites had obtained that victory, and the Moabites had been the losers, as Elisha had predicted. Your argument is flawed. You are fighting a lost cause. One should be willing to admit defeat in an argument, and not discredit oneself more by continuing to fight a losing battle.

You have yet to directly respond to a single one of my concerns. All you've done is insist over and over again that I am wrong and that you are right. I am honestly and sincerely shocked and appalled at the level of your discourse.

[Robert F. Smith]

zerinus, on 01 July 2011 - 11:14 PM, said:

The Spirit testifies to me that the Bible as a whole is true, and there is very little in it that might be false or incorrect. I don’t claim to have the kind of revelation that Joseph Smith had, which enabled him to correct some of the errors and supply many missing parts; but I don’t need to be able to do that in order to know that the Bible as a whole is true; and if there are any scribal errors in it, it is not such that it would prevent me from extracting correct doctrine from it with the help of the Spirit of the Lord.

The Bible provides its own context and history, which aids its correct interpretation. You don’t need to go much further afield for that purpose. Modern revelation also supplies many vital clues and missing parts. That is all that the gospel scholar needs to extract correct theology and the saving doctrines of the gospel which God has seen fit to reveal in our time.

I don't see anything fundamentally wrong with reading the Bible and Book of Mormon (and perhaps some other modern scripture) for inspiration and in order to discover the proper way to personal salvation.  One doesn't have to be a Bible scholar for that -- particularly if one is informed by the Holy Spirit.  Without the Holy Spirit, of course, one is likely to find oneself in endless disputes over fundamental points of doctrine -- which in turn leads to the continuing schism and ever expanding denominationalism which plagues normative christianity.

However, debate over the minutiae of the Bible does entail a reasonable degree of familiarity with the historical, theological, and linguistic context.  Joseph Smith himself believed that "our latitude and longitude can be determined in the original Hebrew with far greater accuracy than in the English version.  There is a grand distinction between the actual meaning of the prophets and the present translation" (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 290-291). He and the Brethren spent time taking instruction in Hebrew from a Jewish teacher precisely for this very reason.

Edited by Robert F. Smith, 02 July 2011 - 11:08 PM.