Jump to content

Can Elohim Refer to Human Judges


David Bokovoy

Recommended Posts

I suspect that within the next five years, very few, if any, biblical scholars will accept that elohim can refer to human judges in the Old Testament.

The implications for this discovery are truly enormous.

Indeed they are.

While it doesn't speak for all verses using 'elohim', the comparison between Psalms 82:6 and John 10:34-36 shows at least one case in which Jesus/Jehovah uses it in the 'literal divine gods' sense (Jesus' copmparison does not work if it refers to human judges) without having to refer to a Lexicon or some type of commentary.

Link to comment

Hello Kolobian,

That is interesting. What about the plural vs. singular question? Is there similar uniformity?

The Bible contains many examples of the definite article preceding the word elohim. Since as they stand, some of these verses use the grammatical form, definite article followed by proper noun, as a personal name for Israel

Link to comment
And lets not forget James White's masterfull discourse on it either...

In light of all of the evidence that has come forward in the past couple decades regarding the biblical view of a divine council of deities, I wonder if our friend James has now changed his mind...

then again, James never was one who actually concerned himself with something like evidence, now was he?!

Link to comment
And lets not forget James White's masterfull discourse on it either...

http://www.shields-research.org/Critics/A-O_01.html

:P       <_<

I thought, since Bill Hamblin had argued along parallel lines in his very interesting exchange with Mr. James White (linked above), that he would enjoy hearing of additional support for his position, so I dropped him a note regarding this thread. Here is his response:

Heh, heh.  It's fun being right.  But sometimes I don't really notice, since I always am.  (Except when disagreeing with my wife, of course.)

Somebody needs to tell [Mr. James White].

Since Hammurabi's lawcode is a good thousand years older than the supposed date of Exodus (and, as far as I am aware, we have no later textual tradition of the code, though we have later codes that parallel it) I wonder what Wright's argument is about the date and source of the connection.  That the Hebrews got the law code post-exilicly in Babylon?  If so, why are the strongest parallels to Hammurabi rather than later lawcodes?

A subsequent correction or clarification from Dr. Hamblin, in response to a post from Dr. John Gee:

I misspoke.  I didn't mean the date of the Exodus.  What I meant was the supposed date of the writing of the Israelite Law Code.  That is to say, if (as I suspect Wright believes) the Law code is post-exilic (6th century), then why the detailed parallels to the Hammurabi Law code that is over a thousand years older (18th century)?

Incidentally, unlike Dr. Hamblin -- whose typically Mormon fallibility is on full and revealing view in the little back-and-forth above -- Mr. James White is never wrong. It was foreordained before the creation of the cosmos that he would always be right in everything he says.

Link to comment
Incidentally, Mr. James White is never wrong. It was foreordained before the creation of the cosmos that he would always be right in everything he says.

As befits a good Calvinist! <_<

Regarding Bill's comment about always being right, except when disagreeing with his wife, someone asked me yesterday (as I taught the HP Group lesson on Priesthood Authority) if I ever try to pull rank on my wife as the house priesthood holder. My response? "I wouldn't dare! She would be after me for months afterward!" :P

Beowulf

PS Sorry about the sidetracking... I look forward to seeing what David Wright has to say about the Hammurabi connection.

Link to comment

Hello Dan,

Bill asks the following question:

Since Hammurabi's lawcode is a good thousand years older than the supposed date of Exodus (and, as far as I am aware, we have no later textual tradition of the code, though we have later codes that parallel it) I wonder what Wright's argument is about the date and source of the connection.  That the Hebrews got the law code post-exilicly in Babylon?  If so, why are the strongest parallels to Hammurabi rather than later lawcodes?

Currently, the strongest analysis for the dating of the Covenant Code is Bernard M. Levinson

Link to comment

Just one comment -

I suspect that at least for a period of time, the term elohim was used as a generic in that mutiple sects coud worship elohim while essentially referring to different beings - or at least different theologies. This would explain Psalm 82's use of the term. (A worshiper of YHWH could perform the Psalm alongside a follower of Ba'al without a need to distinguish belief sets). And it would in part explain Isaiah's cry for the unification of belief - the LORD our God is one LORD.

Ben

Link to comment
Incidentally, Mr. James White is never wrong. It was foreordained before the creation of the cosmos that he would always be right in everything he says.

As befits a good Calvinist! :unsure:

Regarding Bill's comment about always being right, except when disagreeing with his wife, someone asked me yesterday (as I taught the HP Group lesson on Priesthood Authority) if I ever try to pull rank on my wife as the house priesthood holder. My response? "I wouldn't dare! She would be after me for months afterward!" :P

Beowulf

PS Sorry about the sidetracking... I look forward to seeing what David Wright has to say about the Hammurabi connection.

You do know this priesthood authority thing is a double edged sword for us men don't you?

We can't us it to pull rank over them... but they sure can use it to pull rank over us. Sending us on guilt trips for improprerly magnifing it?!

<_<

Link to comment

Archived

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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...