Psalm 47: A Biblical Prayer to the Gods of

[Qantas]

Sorry I haven't been posting, trying to cut back on the computer time.

1.  You have not addressed the fact that your view of the word elohim turns God into an idol maker since Deuteronomy 4: 19 states that God made the celestial bodies that he alloted to the other nations to worship. Remember that Biblical authors associate the sun, moon, and stars with actual deities (see Job 38:4-7)

[Zeta-Flux]

Qantas,

I still don't see how YHWH is an idol maker if people chose to worship the sun...

David's point seems to hinge on the meaning of the word "divide" in Deut. 4:19. His interpretation of it is "appoint" or "allot ." You seem to be reading the verse as saying something along the lines of "God gave them the sun, moon and stars, and leaves them to themselves in their worship of them" whereas David reads the verse as saying "God appointed it so that these nations would worship the lower gods in the council represented by these things." (That is, I think this is what you both are saying.)

Cheers,

Zeta-Flux

[Qantas]

whereas David reads the verse as saying "God appointed it so that these nations would worship the lower gods in the council represented by these things." (That is, I think this is what you both are saying.)

Cheers,

Zeta-Flux

Yea, that's what I first thought.

[Benjamin McGuire]

Markk writes:

JM knows reads, writes, and speaks Greek and it was his major, When he studies he writes in down first in the original language then starts from there, so is he a scholar? He has a working knowledge of Hebrew and can read commentaries and papers and quote them as well as you guys do, so why can't he be trusted?

First, we are talking about the Old Testament here (which is in Hebrew, not Greek). Second, I have studied Hebrew, so has David, and we can start with the Hebrew text and translate it into English. Does this not make us scholars?

My point is, who cares, I could find in one google search scholars and Jews and what ever that disagree with your views, I do it all the time, it just clouds the threads, I put my hat on the context of the text as a whole while reading others, including LDS and secular works, then attempt to present what I believe and why I believe it, my authority is in the Bible, not mans interpretation, but my interpretation as best as I can do.

And I am saying that with this particular concept - i.e. "judges" no longer being considered a valid meaning for elohim in Biblical scholarship, is a relatively recent development. Which means, the last 30 years or so. I don't have any problems at all with you actually putting your money where your mouth is - and giving us these references. I can say this because I am much more familiar with the literature on this subject than you are. Don't just tell me you can do this, actually do it, and we can compare notes.

Is my Jewish Guy better than yours, what about ...Ibn Ezra on Exodus 21:6

I refer you back to David's comments. Remember, current scholarship.

To say that JM is not qualified to be called a scholar is showing your bias and ignorance.

B.A., Los Angeles Pacific College

M.Div., Talbot Theological Seminary

Litt.D., Grace Graduate School

D.D., Talbot Theological Seminary

The last two were honorary degrees - hence my comment about "earned" degrees. And I note that these afre divinity schools and do not offer degrees in Near Eastern studies, etc. They are degrees in theology.

Would there be any scholar who disagrees with you that i could quote that you would except?

Sure. But remember, we are looking at current scholarship.

So even if the Bible says there is no other gods, they are all idols, and there were none created before or after Him, there are still gods.

I responded to this reference earlier - perhaps you should go back and read it.

Ben

[David Bokovoy]

First, I wanted to say that I really love working with Ben on these issues. The man is brilliant, you guys should really start listening to what he has to say.

Now,

Qantas,

Thanks for returning. I do appreciate your participation.

==Yea, that's what I first thought.

Zeta-Flux is of course correct that my point for Deut. 4:19-20 hinges upon the meaning of the word "divide." Fortunately for my interpretation, the Bible agrees.

Note the JPS translation:

[urroner]

David, I'd really, really appreciate it if you could explain more about the altar built by the Reubenites, the Gadites, and the half-tribe of Manasseh. This sounds absolutely fascinating and I really want to make sure I understand what was going on at the time.

[Markk]

Hi David,

Boy, they must sell large hats in Boston, your head is expanding with each post. (Dunimus a joke).

I have responded to allot of is not all of your points, if not in this thread but the last one you bailed on, and when you were emmulish or what ever that name was, this is not our first go around, remember?

My point is and I can prove from scripture is that the bible clearly teaches Israel (pre and post) worshipped many false gods of the other nations including the Canaanites, Abram and his fathers worshipped nanna. I can prove that the context of the bible clearly shows that these false gods were just that, false. As in Deut. they also worshipped the creation, I gave you cf on that, remember? I can also clearly prove, from the bible, that God clearly chose Israel as His chosen people and gave them the oracles and the laws of God, in which they were to live by. The bible clearly says there is but one God, both Old and New, it clearly says that there will not be any more gods. The Bible clearly show Israel dis obeyed god and they were punished for their disobedience.

I have asked repeatedly if you believe these gods were real, with no reply, it is important to this conversation yet for some reason you don't reply. But I know you like to surf and like Mexican food and Bob Dylan (second best songwriter, Keith Green being the # 1) which I appreciate, but, to be honest I believe you are a atheist in your heart, which often happens in liberal critical thinking, but i hope I'm wrong. But anyway I have given you a outline so the speak of what I believe the OT and NT support in the area of the nature of God, and what Israel (pre and post) worshipped and who they were suppose to worship.

It would help me if you would give me a brief outline in manner that would show me where you are coming from, I have a pretty good idea, but for the record it will help?

Going surfing today after church, hope to talk later.

Mark

John 1:12

[David Bokovoy]

Hello Mark,

==I have responded to allot of is not all of your points, if not in this thread but the last one you bailed on, and when you were emmulish or what ever that name was, this is not our first go around, remember?

Ok. I suppose I

[Markk]

Hi David,

Are you sure you went to Blacks to surf?

My rest is in Christ, not on a day of the week, He did all the work for me, that said it is clear we are not to judge anothers day of rest though.

So what is your brief "outline" on the nature of God in context with Israel and this conversation?

Mark

John 1:12

[David Bokovoy]

==Are you sure you went to Blacks to surf?

Fortunately, there are only so many people on this board who would catch that.

Unfortunately, it really is one of the best breaks in San Diego; I know it far too well.

==So what is your brief "outline" on the nature of God in context with Israel and this conversation?

Busy day today; Perhaps later.

Best wishes,

David

[Markk]

HI David,

I did reply. You need to go back and read more carefully. I also provided the list to which you refer as a playful illustration that my personal views are totally irrelevant to what certain biblical authors may or may not have believed. Except maybe the Bob Dylan part.

Then if that is your reply, you are not going to express any of your personal beliefs as to if these cannanite gods were real or just myth as "biblical scholarship" tells us, at least anything I have read on the subject. Is it fair to say in your experience that "scholarship" relates them, the Ugarit pantheon, as myth or real?

Mark

john 1:12

[Benjamin McGuire]

Markk writes:

Then if that is your reply, you are not going to express any of your personal beliefs as to if these cannanite gods were real or just myth as "biblical scholarship" tells us, at least anything I have read on the subject. Is it fair to say in your experience that "scholarship" relates them, the Ugarit pantheon, as myth or real?

Did you know, Mark, that YHWH was a member of the Ugaritic pantheon?

Ben

[Addictio]

Hi all:

David and Ben, and others, thanks for your interesting and informative thoughts.

Since David's last couple of posts have invoked Deuteronomy, I'm intersted in how you (Ben, David, Nevo? anyone else?) date the authorship of the Deuteronomic Code itself (say Chapters 12-28), which Levinson (in his "Deuteronomy and the Heurmeneutics of Legal Innnovation") urges was authored (entirely?) during the Josian reform period, while Weinfeld (in his "Deuteronomy 1-11" Anchor Bible treatment) appears to assign it to an earlier period, running from Hezekiah to Josiah. In your view, which scholar or scholars provide the most reasonable account of the time of authorship? (I'm aware that Weinfeld suggests the very idea of dating "authorship" or "composition" is somewhat anachronistic, since the process involves for him something more like "compiling," but then Levinson appears not to be troubled in the least by the concept of locating and dating "authorship," at least as applied to the Deuteronomic Code and perhaps to Deuteronomy in general.)

Also, since David is now discussing verses from the "framing" portions of the the text, including Deut. 4, 10 and 32, to what period do you (or does your preferred scholarly account) assign authorship of these Chapters? FWIW, I'm mostly interested at this point in Chapters 1-11, because of the focus of Weinfeld's treatment, and for the reasons indicated below. Ben, David, anyone else?

So part of the reason I'm asking is this. Certain LDS scholars like Noel Reynolds and John Welch appear to assume that the brass plates with their "Five Books of Moses" contents included at least the Deuteronomy Law Code (e.g., Welch's analysis of Jacob's dialogue with Sherem) and the pre-Code Chapters 1-11, which Reynolds argues were used by (or clearly borne in mind by) Nephi in the composition of his portion of the small plates. That is, they seem to be assuming pre-exilic authorship for Deut. 1-11 and 12-28, if not the entire text of Deuteronomy. Anyone agree, or disagree with that assumption?

Finally, a more general, related question, of course, is: how much of Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic history is it reasonable to conclude were contained on the brass plates? Ben has pointed out that the "Zeniffite" record regarding King Noah, for example, appears to be modeled upon the Deuteronomistic history's formulaic treatment of good and bad/wicked kings.

As you may recall, Ben, in our prior discussion of metals referenced in the Book of Ether, you connected the account of Noah and his gold-adorned throne in the Zeniff record with Moroni's similar account of King Riplakish and his wicked character and gold throne in Ether 10. This argument appears to assume that the Deuteronomistic history's formulaic account of good and wicked kings was available to and relied upon by the original authors(s) of the Zeniff record, and/or by Mormon as editor, and at least influenced Moroni too, in his editing/redaction of the Jaredite record. So is that you view? Anyone else agree, disagree?

Btw, I don't mean to derail your thread, David, and I can start a new thread with these questions for the Board, if you'd prefer.

Anyway, thanks again for the stimulating thoughts, folks.

[Markk]

Hi Ben,

Yes, the son of El, and as I explained the OT corrects this Canaanite myth and perception of God. The OT is very clear over and over again that the canaanite gods were false and did not exist and that there is only one true God.

Maybe you can answer the question.

Is it fair to say in your experience, that "scholarship" relates them, the Ugarit pantheon, as myth or do they see them as real existing gods?

Mark

John 1'12

[Benjamin McGuire]

Markk writes:

Yes, the son of El, and as I explained the OT corrects this Canaanite myth and perception of God. The OT is very clear over and over again that the canaanite gods were false and did not exist and that there is only one true God.

Actually, the OT is not clear over and over again. But that's all about how you read the text, and so far, you haven't given me any reason to believe that you are doing anything but superimposing your own theological predilections on the text.

Is it fair to say in your experience, that "scholarship" relates them, the Ugarit pantheon, as myth or do they see them as real existing gods?

Scholarship simply doesn't care about this question. Literary interpretation doesn't require a belief one way or the other. I suspect that most biblical scholars believe they are mythical. The rest of them also believe that much of the Old Testament is mythical for much the same reasons.

Ben

[Kevin Graham]

== The OT is very clear over and over again that the canaanite gods were false and did not exist

Actually it is just the opposite, as I have demonstrated so many times before: http://www.kevingraham.org/gog.htm

[Benjamin McGuire]

Adictio writes:

Since David's last couple of posts have invoked Deuteronomy, I'm intersted in how you (Ben, David, Nevo? anyone else?) date the authorship of the Deuteronomic Code itself (say Chapters 12-28), which Levinson (in his "Deuteronomy and the Heurmeneutics of Legal Innnovation") urges was authored (entirely?) during the Josian reform period, while Weinfeld (in his "Deuteronomy 1-11" Anchor Bible treatment) appears to assign it to an earlier period, running from Hezekiah to Josiah. In your view, which scholar or scholars provide the most reasonable account of the time of authorship?

I believe that Levinson is wrong. Jeremiah uses Deuteronomy 12-26 in his text. So some of the material here (whether or not it was redacted in the Josian reform) pre-dates the Josian reform. At the same time, Deuteronomy 4 and 28-30 use Jeremiah, and should be considered (in their current form) to post-date Jeremiah. So, these sections are indicative of a later authorship.

So I would never claim that Dt. 12-28 was authored entirely during the Josian reform. There was a redactionist that was late, and so the final text may be attributed to a later period, but it sources are earlier.

Also, since David is now discussing verses from the "framing" portions of the the text, including Deut. 4, 10 and 32, to what period do you (or does your preferred scholarly account) assign authorship of these Chapters? FWIW, I'm mostly interested at this point in Chapters 1-11, because of the focus of Weinfeld's treatment, and for the reasons indicated below. Ben, David, anyone else?

Chapter 32 is early. I think its demonstratable that it precedes Jeremiah. It is more of a question as to whether or not it was originally part of Deuteronomy or a later addition from a different source. And it would appear that it may not have been tampered with too much until quite late (the change from sons of god to sons of Israel occurs following the LXX translation, and an original reading is still possible in the DSS texts). Chapter 4 - in its current form probably cannot be seen as pre-exilic even - although it may well draw on older material. Particularly 4:20 has to be viewed as very late.

So part of the reason I'm asking is this. Certain LDS scholars like Noel Reynolds and John Welch appear to assume that the brass plates with their "Five Books of Moses" contents included at least the Deuteronomy Law Code (e.g., Welch's analysis of Jacob's dialogue with Sherem) and the pre-Code Chapters 1-11, which Reynolds argues were used by (or clearly borne in mind by) Nephi in the composition of his portion of the small plates. That is, they seem to be assuming pre-exilic authorship for Deut. 1-11 and 12-28, if not the entire text of Deuteronomy. Anyone agree, or disagree with that assumption?

The Book of Mormon quotes, alludes to, and reinscribes a number of Deuteronomic passages. It clearly quotes Deuteronomy 18. It also quotes (I argue) Deuteronomy 17. My point of view is fairly consistent with what I understand about the text of Deuteronomy. I argue that there was a proto-D text which was used by Jeremiah. This text is what probably went with the Nephites in the form of the Brass Plates. This view is consistent with current scholarship. For a good discussion, and a excellent list of references, I refer you to William L. Holladay's article: "Elusive Deuteronomists, Jeremiah, and Proto-Deuteronomy" in The Catholic Biblical Quarterly, 66/1 (Jan. 2004), pp. 55 ff.

This article is particular significant in that he argues about an early authorship (in proto-D) for several of the Deuteronomic texts which I read in the Book of Mormon. My position is that there was a Deuteronomic text which preceded Deuteronomy (which is called proto-D in the literature) and that it is quite reasonable for a copy of proto-D to exist on the Brass Plates - along side selections of Jeremiah. (It is kind of interesting - fromt he perspective of a believer - to think about how the Book of Mormon - were it accepted as a historical text - would move this discussion forward).

I think that making generalizations cannot help this disucssion much. There has been growing scholarly support for the notion of a proto-D text (i.e. an actual text source which preceded our current Deuteronomy). But, if we want to examine or ask whether or not the use of Deuteronomy in the Book of Mormon is consistent with such a source, it needs to be done one passage at a time. And not with some kind of wholesale wave of the hand. The related issue of the redaction of Jeremiah and the Book of Mormon remains virtually untouched.

Edit: If you wanted to select a passage or two to discuss, I would find it enjoyable.

Ben

[Addictio]

Ben,

Thanks for the reference to the Holladay article.

I believe that Levinson is wrong. Jeremiah uses Deuteronomy 12-26 in his text. So some of the material here (whether or not it was redacted in the Josian reform) pre-dates the Josian reform. At the same time, Deuteronomy 4 and 28-30 use Jeremiah, and should be considered (in their current form) to post-date Jeremiah. So, these sections are indicative of a later authorship.

So I would never claim that Dt. 12-28 was authored entirely during the Josian reform. There was a redactionist that was late, and so the final text may be attributed to a later period, but it sources are earlier.

My "entirely?" query was meant, btw, simply to contrast Levinson's general position regarding those he calls "the authors of Deuteronomy," whose aims and innovative strategies are the subject of his book, with Weinfeld's position. It's clear Levinson isn't committed to the view that literally everything in the Law Code was "authored" or "composed" by them during the reform period, since the hermeneutical process he describes focuses principally on their recasting of the pre-existing Covenant Code and related material now found in Exodus. Further, he acknowledges later "Deuteronomist" revisions to the Law Code and the framing materials in the Book of Deuteronomy. So if you do think "Levinson is wrong," it should be based on his book, rather than an inference that all of Dt. 12-28 was composed during the reform period.

I think that making generalizations cannot help this disucssion much. There has been growing scholarly support for the notion of a proto-D text (i.e. an actual text source which preceded our current Deuteronomy). But, if we want to examine or ask whether or not the use of Deuteronomy in the Book of Mormon is consistent with such a source, it needs to be done one passage at a time. And not with some kind of wholesale wave of the hand.

So who is suggesting hand waving, wholesale or retail? My remark was that the LDS writers I referenced (and certain others) apprear simply to assume that everything in the current Book of Deuteronomy was available to the Nephites, apparently from the brass plates. Whether we agree with L. or Weinfeld, or anyone else's analysis of authorship, the issue isn't whether nothing in the current Dtr. could reasonably be inferred to be contained in the brass plates. Even if we agree with Levinson, that wouldn't follow.

Btw, I still have this question from our prior discussion about metals, which I don't think you addressed. Or perhaps you mean I need to cite or quote the passages I reference? Anyway:

As you may recall, Ben, in our prior discussion of metals referenced in the Book of Ether, you connected the account of Noah and his gold-adorned throne in the Zeniff record with Moroni's similar account of King Riplakish and his wicked character and gold throne in Ether 10. This argument appears to assume that the Deuteronomistic history's formulaic account of good and wicked kings was available to and relied upon by the original authors(s) of the Zeniff record, and/or by Mormon as editor, and at least influenced Moroni too, in his editing/redaction of the Jaredite record. So is that you view?

[Benjamin McGuire]

Addictio writes:

So who is suggesting hand waving, wholesale or retail?  My remark was that the LDS writers I referenced (and certain others) apprear simply to assume that everything in the current Book of Deuteronomy was available to the Nephites, apparently from the brass plates. Whether we agree with L. or Weinfeld, or anyone else's analysis of authorship, the issue isn't whether nothing in the current Dtr. could reasonably be inferred to be contained in the brass plates. Even if we agree with Levinson, that wouldn't follow.

And this is what I meant. I don't think it is necessary to conclude that Deuteronomy was a pre-exilic work based on the Book of Mormon's use of it, nor do I think it is sufficient to claim that scholarship posits a proto-D and so we are freed from the necessity of examining individual passages. I think you will agree with me on these points.

As you may recall, Ben, in our prior discussion of metals referenced in the Book of Ether, you connected the account of Noah and his gold-adorned throne in the Zeniff record with Moroni's similar account of King Riplakish and his wicked character and gold throne in Ether 10. This argument appears to assume that the Deuteronomistic history's formulaic account of good and wicked kings was available to and relied upon by the original authors(s) of the Zeniff record, and/or by Mormon as editor, and at least influenced Moroni too, in his editing/redaction of the Jaredite record. So is that you view?

Yes this is my view - that the kingship codes of Deuteronomy 17 heavily influenced Nephite thought on the subject. Similarly, I think that Deuteronomy 18 (which is quoted explicitly enough to make a sure identification) was influential in Nephite thought in dealing with the nature of Prophets (tangentially, this makes more sense if there were "others").

I would be more inclined to see this as coming largely from Moroni, and less from either the writer(s) of the Zeniff records and the writer(s) and/or translators of the Jaredite record. I would not call Moroni's text of the Book of Ether a redaction or an editing, but essentially a creative work of Moroni which may include elements from the earlier translation that he uses - quotes, references, allusions and reinscriptions. I do not believe it is appropriate to refer to the Book of Ether as a redaction. And this is why I am confident in attributing the description to Moroni.

I did become aware this morning of a new article which I haven't read yet - it is hot of the press - in Vetus Testamentum, titled "The literary criticism and rhetorical logic of Deuteronomy i-iv". I won't have access to it for a couple of weeks (at least), but from the abstract, it probably will be of significant interest to me, and is certainly of interest as far as this topic goes:

It is generally accepted that the first speech of Moses in Deuteronomy (i 1-iv 40) is not of one piece, and that a clear distinction needs to be recognized between the rhetorical parenesis of chapter iv and the narrative recapitulation in chapters i-iii. This analysis has even proved determinative for scholars interested in the final form of the biblical text, despite the recognition that the chapters are portrayed canonically as Moses's first speech. A lack of substantive thematic connections between the two parts of the speech prevents any attempt to trace unity across the whole. This article argues that the consensus on the literary history of these chapters may be more problematic than commonly thought. Further, it is proposed that common to both the narrative and the parenetic sections of Moses's first speech are the complex interrelationship between the themes of divine presence, human obedience, election and the land.

N. MacDonald has written extensively on Deuteronomy and on the subject of Old Testament monotheism/polytheism. I suspect the article will have significant value to me.

Ben

[Nevo]

I believe that Levinson is wrong. Jeremiah uses Deuteronomy 12-26 in his text. So some of the material here (whether or not it was redacted in the Josian reform) pre-dates the Josian reform.

This only follows if (per W. Holladay) there was no Deuteronomistic editing of Jeremiah. However, "most [scholars] understand the work's present form to be either the result of a severely modifying deuteronomic redaction of Jeremiah's words or the outcome of a long process of composition that in some way included substantial deuteronomic influence" (Robert A. Kugler, "The Deuteronomists and the Latter Prophets," Those Elusive Deuteronomists: The Phenomenon of Pan-Deuteronomism, eds. L. S. Schearing and S. L. McKenzie [JSOTSup 268; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999], 142; cf. William L. Holladay, "Elusive Deuteronomists, Jeremiah, and Proto-Deuteronomy," CBQ 66 [2004]: 56).

[David Bokovoy]

Greetings Friends,

I

[Benjamin McGuire]

Nevo writes:

This only follows if (per W. Holladay) there was no Deuteronomistic editing of Jeremiah. However, "most [scholars] understand the work's present form to be either the result of a severely modifying deuteronomic redaction of Jeremiah's words or the outcome of a long process of composition that in some way included substantial deuteronomic influence" (Robert A. Kugler, "The Deuteronomists and the Latter Prophets," Those Elusive Deuteronomists: The Phenomenon of Pan-Deuteronomism, eds. L. S. Schearing and S. L. McKenzie [JSOTSup 268; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999], 142; cf. William L. Holladay, "Elusive Deuteronomists, Jeremiah, and Proto-Deuteronomy," CBQ 66 [2004]: 56).

Obviously the issue of Jeremiah (versus a proto-Jeremiah) could call into question the chronology of the borrowing. That is, perhaps Jeremiah was borrowing from a D instead of a proto-D. However, Holladay's arguments about D and proto-D do not preclude a deuteronomist revision of Jeremiah, or even require it. Suggesting a proto-D I think works in the favor of a Deuteronomist redaction of Jeremiah - although not all the time. Again, this is why I think we need to visit the references in the Book of Mormon individually instead of attempting to lump them all together.

Ben

[Markk]

Hi kevin,

[Benjamin McGuire]

Markk writes:

I actually don't know where to start, there are so many verses, I gave you my short out line of what I believe the bible is saying in context to this conversation, I am waiting for yours and David's.

Over and over in the text the OT tells Israel not to serve the canaanite gods, to put them away, cut them down, not to make or sacrifice to them, and to serve the one true God, and the only God.

So give me your brief "outline", of the top of your head, of what the OT is saying in context with our conversation, and then I will walk you through the verses that would support my view.

Actually, I think I already gave you my take on it. I agree with the first part of your statement - over and over again, the OT tells Israel not to serve Canaanite gods. It never makes the claim that YHWH is the only God, except in much later material - following the return from the Babylonian exile - and even then, Israel moves not to an absolutely strict monotheism, but to a duality - the invisble God, and Wisdom (it was not a duality of equals, and this shift was adopted to a great extent by early Christianity). Prior to the Babylonian exile, the Old Testament (as it was) and popular Israelite religion did not recognize YHWH as the only existing god (it did, from time to time, suggest that the others were impotent however).

Aside from Kevin, I would say that "all" believe that they (Canaanite) are mythical, unless you hold that these gods were/are real, or David might? This is important to know Ben, It creates a very large problem for LDS theology in that your wooden views and interpretation create these gods being what they were believed by the Canaanite's and "disobedience" Israel. I contend they were just that, a myth, and the OT is a correction notice to Israel, who God chose to receive His oracles, to correct this perverted belief, and understand the true nature of God.

Here is the rub Markk. I don't hold the Bible to be inerrant. I also don't view it as a single coherent theological statement. Neither position is necessary for my belief. So I can contend that the Bible makes theological claims (or rather that its authors made theological claims) which are inconsistent both with my own theology and with LDS theology.

So, while I believe that the Canaanite divinities are essentially mythical, this doesn't mean that I have to believe that the Old Testament authors believed that these Canaanite divinities were mythical, or that you everyday Israelite, who went to the temple in Jerusalem and made offerings to YHWH's consort Asherah, believed that they were making offerings to some mythical being. The OT authors often viewed these Canaanite divinities as very real, and having real power, and as having been created by YHWH (or El) and given other peoples to be their divinities (i.e. to be worhsipped by them). The OT doesn't attempt to "correct" this belief until quite late (certainly not before the time of Isaiah). When it does so, it has to go back and re-write many of its sacred texts (that is, it has to rewrite the books of Moses) to conform to its new stricter monotheism.

This is why, for example, when Israel was attempting to destroy the Moabites (2 Kings 3), they are victorious until the King of Moab offers his son as a sacrifice to his Canaanite god - at which point, Israel, furious about the turn of events leaves and goes home. They have become unable to defeat Moab.

And finally, lets get back again to the issues that you really haven't touched on. Why does interpretation of the Bible within the context of its authorship need to have anything to do with my personal beliefs or theology? Why should my beliefs and theology be involved in trying to uncover the intentions of the authors of the Old Testament. Such an issue might be important if we thought (for a moment) that religion did not evolve, and did not change as language and society change. But, this is exactly what Evangelical scholar Larry Hurtado claimed was an anti-critical apologetic approach - and completely invalid. Using the same logic though, when you criticize me (and David) for attempting to interpret the text so that it fits our Mormon ideological agenda, why is it that you also don't reveal to us your status as a former Mormon, and your agenda in which you have decided that the LDS church is completely false and thus the suggestion that anything that you think supports the church must be wrong. Do you think that such a revelation is necessary when you interpret the text?

Ben

[Markk]

Hi Ben,

OK, my agenda as a ex-Mormon is to show and prove through the text that the Bible (OT) was a correction notice to Israel that there is only one true God and that the others mythical gods of the Egyptians and Canaanites and others were false and idols. That is what I believe and that is my "agenda' as you call it. What your doing is painting a picture that "scholarship" excepts that these gods were more than mythical, that was important to get out in the open.

I'll start here, What about dagon and 1 Samuel chapter five (cf judges 16:23, 1 Chron. 10:10 and judges 13-16) Dagon, is clearly nothing more than a idol, and is shown as such, this elohim had no power and being, nothing more than a stone or wood symbol of a mythical god portrayed by stone or wood. There is no indication that the OT 's message is one that this elohim was real.

Thanks

Mark

John 1:12