The Biblical Gods:

[Markk]

Hi Bill,

What I have found is when one is taken out their comfort zone communication is slim at best, I have asked plenty of questions that would help the communication here, I have also answered your questions the way I see them and believe them, just because I do not agree with the premise of your question, does not make either one of us right or wrong. But in order to communicate both sides need to answer each others questions, that is what communication is. This thread was started out with very theological tones.

David introduced this thread with...

According to Latter-day Saint theology, God is not alone.

Indeed, one of the central theological tenets typically associated with LDS theology includes the existence of multiple deities. With this view, Latter-day Saints find themselves in greater harmony with the Bible than any other Christian group.

So given this, my questions are very important to defending my views. This thread is very personal to both LDS members and Christians, but it is also very interesting and we both can learn from it.

Take care

Mark

John 1:12

[Zakuska]

Markk said:

Isaiah never says God was formed, that is just not in the text, it says that there was no El created before or after Him, meaning that He alone is God.

Did Markk just tell us that God was the only thing ever Created?

[Qantas]

Did Markk just tell us that God was the only thing ever Created?

No, you just wanted it to say that.

I also like the fact that if the Mormon quotes a

[Daniel Peterson]

This thread is very personal to both LDS members and Christians . . .

Somewhat the way the Bible is important to both Baptists and Protestants? The way oxygen is vital to both squirrels and mammals? The way verbs are common to both Arabic and languages?

[Findiar]

Did Markk just tell us that God was the only thing ever Created?

No, you just wanted it to say that.

I also like the fact that if the Mormon quotes a

[Zakuska]

Why do we have to revert to Scholars when we have 1st Century Christian Appologists to do our work for us?

Chapter LIX.-God Distinct from the Father Conversed with Moses.

When I had spoken these words, I continued: "Permit me, further, to show you from the book of Exodus how this same One, who is both Angel, and God, and Lord, and man, and who appeared in human form to Abraham and Isaac,214 appeared in a flame of fire from the bush, and conversed with Moses." And after they said they would listen cheerfully, patiently, and eagerly, I went on: "These words are in the book which bears the title of Exodus: `And after many days the king of Egypt died, and the children of Israel groaned by reason of the works; '215 and so on until, `Go and gather the elders of Israel, and thou shalt say unto them, The Lord God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath appeared to me, saying, I am surely beholding you, and the things which have befallen you in Egypt.'"216 In addition to these words, I went on: "Have you perceived, sirs, that this very God whom Moses speaks of as an Angel that talked to him in the flame of fire, declares to Moses that He is the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob? "

Then I replied, "Reverting to the Scriptures, I shall endeavour to persuade you, that He who is said to have appeared to Abraham, and to Jacob, and to Moses, and who is called God, is distinct from Him who made all things,-numerically, I mean, not [distinct] in will. For I affirm that He has never at any time done185 anything which He who made the world-above whom there is no other God-has not wished Him both to do and to engage Himself with."

And Trypho said, "Prove now that this is the case, that we also may agree with you. For we do not understand you to affirm that He has done or said anything contrary to the will of the Maker of all things."

Then I said, "The Scripture just quoted by me will make this plain to you. It is thus: `The sun was risen on the earth, and Lot entered into Segor (Zoar); and the Lord rained on Sodom sulphur and fire from the Lord out of heaven, and overthrew these cities and all the neighbourhood.'"186

Then the fourth of those who had remained with Trypho said, "It187 must therefore necessarily be said that one of the two angels who went to Sodom, and is named by Moses in the Scripture Lord, is different from Him who also is God and appeared to Abraham."188

You see there are two YWHW's spoke of in Scripture.

Chapter LXXXIII.-It is Proved that the Psalm, "The Lord Said to My Lord," Etc., Does Not Suit Hezekiah.

"For your teachers have ventured to refer the passage, `The Lord says to my Lord, Sit at my right hand, till I make Thine enemies Thy footstool, 'to Hezekiah; as if he were requested to sit on the right side of the temple, when the king of Assyria sent to him and threatened him; and he was told by Isaiah not to be afraid. Now we know and admit that what Isaiah said took place; that the king of Assyria desisted from waging war against Jerusalem in Hezekiah's days, and the angel of the Lord slew about 185, 000 of the host of the Assyrians. But it is manifest that the Psalm does not refer to him. For thus it is written, `The Lord says to my Lord, Sit at My right hand, till I make Thine enemies Thy footstool. He shall send forth a rod of power over329 Jerusalem, and it shall rule in the midst of Thine330 enemies. In the splendour of the saints before the morning star have I begotten Thee. The Lord hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.' Who does not admit, then, that Hezekiah is no priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek? And who does not know that he is not the redeemer of Jerusalem? And who does not know that he neither sent a rod of power into Jerusalem, nor ruled in the midst of his enemies; but that it was God who averted from him the enemies, after he mourned and was afflicted? But our Jesus, who has not yet come in glory, has sent into Jerusalem a rod of power, namely, the word of calling and repentance [meant] for all nations over which demons held sway, as David says, `The gods of the nations are demons.' And His strong word has prevailed on many to forsake the demons whom they used to serve, and by means of it to believe in the Almighty God because the gods of the nations are demons.331 And we mentioned formerly that the statement, `In the splendour of the saints before the morning star have I begotten Thee from the womb, 'is made to Christ.

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-...m#P4795_1036320

[thesometimesaint]

quantas:

Try http://scriptures.lds.org/gsg/gdgdhd

[urroner]

And once again, let me include from the writing of Origen. Origen. Commentary on John, Book 2, Section 3

Now it is possible that some may dislike what we have said representing the Father as the one true God, but admitting other beings besides the true God, who have become gods by having a share of God. They may fear that the glory of Him who surpasses all creation may be lowered to the level of those other beings called gods. We drew this distinction between Him and them that we showed God the Word to be to all the other gods the minister of their divinity. To this we must add, in order to obviate objections, that the reason which is in every reasonable creature occupied the same relation to the reason who was in the beginning with God, and is God the Word, as God the Word occupies to God. As the Father who is Very God and the True God is to His image and to the images of His image--men are said to be according to the image, not to be images of God--so He, the Word, is to the reason (word) in every man. Each fills the place of a fountain--the Father is the fountain of divinity, the Son of reason. As, then, there are many gods, but to us there is but one God the Father, and many Lords, but to us there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, so there are many Lgoi, but we, for our part, pray that that one Lgos; may be with us who was in the beginning and was with God, God the Logos.

Bolding is mine

[rameumptom]

I would like to note the special role that Asherah held in early Israel. She was the consort of God - first of El Elyon (Elohim), and later of Yahweh, as he replaced El Elyon in Israel during the Diaspora.

Asherah's role was so important in Israel as God's consort that when Elijah stood before the hundreds of Baal and Asherah priests, he only insisted upon the deaths of the priests of Baal. He left the priests of Asherah alone. Why? Probably because she was God's consort, although also considered the consort of Baal. Obviously both Gods were fighting over her.

For much of Israel's early existence, worshiping El and Yahweh in high places and upon altars was not a problem. Only in the Deuteronomist changes that occurred with the Josian reform (ca 650 BC) do we see such altars destroyed and replaced with temple-centric worship. Margaret Barker states that at this time we also see many changes occur within the temple worship, such as the removal of the Tree of Life from the temple, since it was representative of the Asherah. Asherah was also viewed as Wisdom and Fertility, which were highly prized abilities by the Israelites and their God.

Elohim was (as was Baal) represented by a bull. The golden calf that Moses destroyed may represent the beginning of Yahweh's replacement of Elohim in Israel. And King Jeroboam's two young bulls that were placed in the extreme north and south of the Kingdom of Israel (split from Judah) represented a return to the worship of Elohim and the entire land as symbolic of God/El's promised land/temple.

Where Yahweh proclaims that there was no God before nor after him is telling of the challenges within the divine council. Job shows that challenges occurred, with Satan and the Sons of God challenging Yahweh via his servant Job. Some of the gods of the Divine Council had fallen and replaced by other gods. This had occurred among the Canaanites, where Baal had replaced a previous god. Yahweh was referring to this event when he stated he was Israel's first God (unlike Baal), and that he would not be replaced (no usurpers such as Baal).

This challenging among the gods is apparent in the LDS belief of a premortal council, where Lucifer challenges Jesus - similar to the challenge in Job. And if Lucifer can still challenge Yahweh in the writings of Job, why must we reject the idea of demons as potential gods among ancient Israel? Do we not read in Isaiah where Lucifer tries to replace God on his throne? Clearly, Bill Hamblin is correct in establishing that ontologically existing demons can be classed as gods by those who worship them.

The Documentary Hypothesis, whether you agree with it or not, strongly shows that early Biblical writings were manipulated by later writers, in order to push their political and theological agendas. Bart Ehrman shows the same events occurring in the New Testament.

If we go extra-Biblical, we find in the writings of Enoch and other early writings that there was a divine council, and many of these gods fell and married the daughters of man. These fallen angels/gods/Watchers were beings of power and used that power to challenge the divinity of God and to attempt to overthrow Yahweh. We see this same mentality in Nimrod's attempt to build a tower to heaven in order to overthrow God's order there. These threats by Watchers and Nimrod are so serious, and taken as serious by God, that he has to take action against it. The apostle John sees the Beast and Priest tied in with a Dragon/Devil that seek to overthrow God and his kingdom. Even Paul sees the day to come when Satan would sit on God's throne as a sign of apostasy.

[Cold Steel]

Given these verses and more if you like, the message of isaiah is that there is one God, no more, no less.

"For I am the Lord, and there is none else, there is no God."

"Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else."

With the above in mind, what is the meaning of this scripture?

"The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool. The LORD shall send the rod of thy strength out of Zion: rule thou in the midst of thine enemies." (Psalms 110:1-2)

And what did God mean in Genesis when he said, "Man has become as one of us...?"

[David Bokovoy]

Hello Qantas,

==I also like the fact that if the Mormon quotes a

[Markk]

HI Cold Steel,

First I'll start out by saying what it does not mean. It does not mean that man became more like God in strict nature because he sinned. Man did not become anything else that he was not, aside from being sinful. Obviously man did not take on any attributes that only God can have, all knowing, ever present, all powerful...etc. What this verse says is answered in the text it's self. "Man has become more like Us, to know good and evil", man because of his sin became aware of the fact that there is both good and evil. Being created sinless and perfect they did not know the difference. That's why the tree was called the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Satan lied to Eve and deceived them, saying they would not die, but they did, they were separated from God by their new sinful nature.

I believe the "Us" refers to the tribune nature of God. I have also heard it taught that it could be God and the angels, who also know good from evil and have free will, which is evident from the rebellion.

Who do you believe the Us are?

Mark

John 1:12

[urroner]

HI Cold Steel,

First I'll start out by saying what it does not mean. It does not mean that man became more like God in strict nature because he sinned. Man did not become anything else that he was not, aside from being sinful. Obviously man did not take on any attributes that only God can have, all knowing, ever present, all powerful...etc. What this verse says is answered in the text it's self. "Man has become more like Us, to know good and evil", man because of his sin became aware of the fact that there is both good and evil. Being created sinless and perfect they did not know the difference. That's why the tree was called the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Satan lied to Eve and deceived them, saying they would not die, but they did, they were separated from God by their new sinful nature.

I believe the "Us" refers to the tribune nature of God. I have also heard it taught that it could be God and the angels, who also know good from evil and have free will, which is evident from the rebellion.

Who do you believe the Us are?

Mark

John 1:12

How powerful is God? Is God powerful enough to create another like Him?

[Markk]

Hi U.

To quote the mexican day labor I hired the other day who answerd all questions with...."Mayyybeeee"?

I would say no, but I could be wrong?

Mark

John 1:12

[Ron Beron]

I disagree, go to Genesis 17:1-3, in these three verses The God of Abraham (Abram) is referred to as YHWH, El Shadday, and Elohim.

Asherah is noted as a false deity elsewhere, I would disagree that shad racham is referring to a true deity or even a false one, the different names of God here show His sovereignty, and as I said earlier through assimilation Israel applied attributes of the false gods of the nations to YHWH, He alone is mighty God, He alone is Yahweh. This is proof in it's self of how Israel was monotheistic

As to your first point Genesis 17 is generally thought to be a later addition to the OT by the Priestly strata. I am not arguing that Israel ultimately rid itself of polytheistic views, but I am arguing that Israel prior to Judges was for all extent and purposes a theology in transition and did worship various deities at various times and places.

Secondly, the concept of Asherah whether as a anthropomorphic deity or as a tree-like ritual object was, according to all archaeological and literary evidence, worshipped, as above variously. It is beyond question that the Canaanites worshipped such a deity. The question remains then as to what degree the early Israelites followed along with their obvious neighbors? At best there is tremendous debate on this subject which for now seems to be inclined towards a view that early Israelite belief worshipped a female deity.

Again, the message of God is to stay away from these fals egods and that they were just that, false, and to worship only the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob.

I would agree that there is one God, but you neglect entirely the role of progressive religious belief. Israel started polytheistic, but ultimately ended up monotheistic.

This has been hashed out here many times, It is referring to Israel as the chosen people for the oracle of God, they are His children, the other gentile nations, you can not separate El Elyon and YHWh...see Gen. 14:22 "And Abram said to the king of Sodom, I have lift up mine hand unto the LORD, the most high God, the possessor of heaven and earth, "

I have not separated them. Obviously, from my reading the scriptures already have.

Specifically, however, Genesis 14 like Genesis 17 incorporates the Priestly connection.

More interestingly, Abraham is telling the king of Sodom that he had promised the LORD (Yahweh, Jehovah), whom he (the king)recognizes as the separate deity El Elyon (Most High God)

The verse I gave address this, He is above all the false gods, there is no indication in the Bible that other gods are real but scores of proof texts that indicate just the opposite. This verse even in contridictory to the deft verse you quoted, if what you said was true and El Shadday is the Highest God then this verse would contradict that in that YHWH is God of gods, making Him higher than the most high, it makes no sense. The verse is referring to pagan idols that have no power or being, and made gods.

I do not see the contradiction, I simply see where the writer is declaring that his god is more powerful than all the others, hence, "El Elohim yhwh, el elohim yhwh."

The special name of YHWH spoken of before the flood was not known to them, now it is, God is getting close. See verse 7, Israel deliverance is assured.

Of course, it was. It is no secret that Ya, the Canaanite, and later YHWH under the Israelites, pronunciation is derived from the Sumerian Ea. The following from Wiki

Enki, Ea and Yahweh

In 1964, a team of Italian archaeologists under the direction of Paolo Matthiae of the University of Rome La Sapienza performed a series of excavations of material from the third-millennium BCE city of Ebla. Much of the written material found in these digs was later translated by Dr. Giovanni Pettinato.[1] Among other conclusions, he found a tendency among the inhabitants of Ebla to replace the name of El, king of the Gods of the Canaanite Pantheon (found in names such as Mikael), with Yah (as in Mikiah). Jean Bottero and many others have suggested that Yah in this case is a West Semitic (Canaanite) way of saying Ea, Enki's Akkadian name.

Yah, Yahu, or Yaw becomes the God of the Waters, of Yamm (the Sea) and Nahar (the Rivers) in Levantine Mythology, contesting with Baal Hadad, the storm God (the Canaanite divinity equivalent to Enlil), for supreme power. It has been suggested that this God - Canaanite Yah (Ea/Enki), unified with the Aramaic "Mother of all Living" - the Goddess Hawwah (Akkadian Ninhursag), into a single androgynous creator divinity, may be the origin of the Tetragrammaton YHWH (Yahweh, from Yah and Hawwah) [3]. This would explain Yahweh's role as Creator, the God who made Humankind, and the God who saved Noah from the Flood, all attributes of Enki. Thus it may be that behind Yahweh himself, lies the nature and character of the earlier Sumerian God.

Some of this article was originally from the 1911 Encyclop

[huckelberry]

"Earlier writings were manipulated by later writers in the formation of the Bilical text"

No kidding. That has been oft observed in the past couple of hundred years. The Bible shows pieces of a variety of theological views and shows an editing of the texts towards later views. One thing that creates is a degree of ambiguity about just what theology was held by (? ) in say 850 BC. There are clues but I notice people like to fill in the uncretainty by reference to earlier general cultural sources instead of original discussions by 850 BC jews. Probably because there is a lack of material discussing the problems of the divine council from that time period from Judea. It would be nice to find some actual discussions from that time. But which group would you like to hear about? Naturally any would be historically exciting and informative. But I am wonder which group would be considered the true representative of beliefs. Or which group would have the correct understanding.

I am also wondering how in the context of this discussion one would decide which of a variety of possible views would have any authoritive priorty. It is one thing to observe a conceptual picture (fantasy?) of Baal and Elohim fighting over whos wife Asherah is. It is another to ask should anybody take that image as spiritually valid? Historically and concretely valid? Sure somebody may have believed jus that but, so what?

There is after all a long interpretive tradition in looking at the matter of developement of ideas in the Old Testement to see the change as a result of increased and clarified understanding coming through Gods tutalege by way of prophets. Is there any reason not to see the matter that way? This thread seems to be happy to see fragments of older views in the Biblical text and (at least sort of ) believe they represent a lost and superior understanding. Yet I see no reason to see it as superior. In fact the question of superiority of those older views is uncertain enough I am a bit unsure if people mean to say they are or not. Perhaps people merely mean to point out a larger degree of flexibility in meaning of Biblicial texts than sometimes is assumed. I can understand that as fair, but it still sets up in my mind the questions about which views would be a better description of spritual reality. If Isreael God says nobody before him, it does mean that there was nobody claiming Israels devotion but God. Does it also mean that Jehovah is a johnny come lately shuffled Between Baal Dagon and since I came from scandanavian background and dont give a hoot for Baal, Thor?

I think the movement towards more specifically monotheist thought in the Bible resulted from actual questions about who is due and deserves loyalty. I think the movement of change clarified who God is and should be taken seriously as revelation. Is there a reason not to see the center of authority in scripture that way?

[Ron Beron]

I think the movement towards more specifically monotheist thought in the Bible resulted from actual questions about who is due and deserves loyalty. I think the movement of change clarified who God is and should be taken seriously as revelation. Is there a reason not to see the center of authority in scripture that way?

Authority, in my POV, is always dictated by the winners. I don't think that we can ever determine what actually occurred in the 8th century, but we can make some generalized deductions due to the historical and archaeological discoveries. In the long run does any of it really matter due to what we know now or what we might know in the years to come?

[huckelberry]

authority in my POV is dictated by the difference between what is and what isnt. That is discovering truth has authority that a chair in the front of the room does not confer. Winning is an uncertain indicator.

I think it best to view some of the images from earlier Cananite culture as usable laguage tools not to be understood as literally true. I think they are used that way in the final Biblical version though they may have been understood more literally by some people in 850 BC.

[David Bokovoy]

Hello Huckelberry,

==There is after all a long interpretive tradition in looking at the matter of development of ideas in the Old Testament to see the change as a result of increased and clarified understanding coming through Gods tutalege by way of prophets.

And changing the meaning of the original texts. See the initial post in this thread.

==Is there any reason not to see the matter that way?

Only if you view the Old Testament as uninspired in and of itself.

==This thread seems to be happy to see fragments of older views in the Biblical text and (at least sort of ) believe they represent a lost and superior understanding. Yet I see no reason to see it as superior.

Again, you need to go back and sift through the entire thread if you wish to understand the argument. The monotheism espoused by most contemporary Jews and Christians today who view the Bible as religiously authoritative does not appear in the Old Testament.

Radical monotheism is a later non-biblical view that appears in the Septuagint and Targumim.

I believe that we have pretty well-established this point.

[The_Monk]

This begins to seriously resemble another thread, on adieu.

Lots of assertions and Bible quotations on one side, but little in the way of actual argumentation.

(Note: I'm not hinting at this thread being closed. Leave it open and watch the rope get even longer...)

[Ron Beron]

authority in my POV is dictated by the difference between what is and what isnt. That is discovering truth has authority that a chair in the front of the room does not confer. Winning is an uncertain indicator.

An interesting statement. Can you explain it a bit further?

[Markk]

Hi EA,

As to your first point Genesis 17 is generally thought to be a later addition to the OT by the Priestly strata.

What do you mean by "generally", whom are you speaking of here? What would you offer as proof of this?

but I am arguing that Israel prior to Judges was for all extent and purposes a theology in transition and did worship various deities at various times and places.

Yes and no, Israel certainly did worship the nations gods, but were punished and warned not to because they were false, again, that is what one of the main themes of the OT is that the true living God, the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob, is to be worshipped alone and all others are false. Obedient Israel adopted the names and attributes of certain Canaanite deities and applied them to the one true God, showing that the nations gods were indeed false.

Secondly, the concept of Asherah whether as a anthropomorphic deity or as a tree-like ritual object was, according to all archaeological and literary evidence, worshipped, as above variously. It is beyond question that the Canaanites worshipped such a deity. The question remains then as to what degree the early Israelites followed along with their obvious neighbors? At best there is tremendous debate on this subject which for now seems to be inclined towards a view that early Israelite belief worshipped a female deity.

Asherah is mentioned in the Bible about 40 times, from Exodus to Micah, which one of these would you take a proof text that Obedient Israel worshipped her?

Unless I missed one, they all are in the negative to her, supporting the fact that the Bible is a correction notice to Israel not to get involved with the nations mythical gods.

Do a study on "living God", it is a good study.

I would agree that there is one God, but you neglect entirely the role of progressive religious belief. Israel started polytheistic, but ultimately ended up monotheistic.

Again, the Bible is a correction notice and tells Israel who the true and living God is. A central theme of the OT is for the people to turn away from idol worship and false deities and worship and believe in the true and living God, the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob. Remember, Abraham worship Nanna, and God corrected it, this is what the Bible does, it points us to the True God, the only God, the God of our salvation.

I have not separated them. Obviously, from my reading the scriptures already have.

Specifically, however, Genesis 14 like Genesis 17 incorporates the Priestly connection.

More interestingly, Abraham is telling the king of Sodom that he had promised the LORD (Yahweh, Jehovah), whom he (the king)recognizes as the separate deity El Elyon (Most High God)

No, these were separate gods in the mythical Ugarit pantheon, but again, the Bible corrects this. Abram is clearly saying that El Elyon is YHWH, which in it's self shows the assimilation of the Canaanite deities, this show Mel. also believed the same, they were in agreement.

Mark

John 1:12

[huckelberry]

David states I should read the thread.

I did skip a few pages in the middle finding it a bit bogged down in idols and demons dispute. I have now dutifully plowed through those pages as well. David makes a number of observations I do not feel so foolish as to want to dispute. That is I have been foolish at times but to take up a challenge to find a scholar who believes the Bible teaches radical monotheism from start to finish is foolishness beyond my taste.

David askes,"why did the Rabbis decide to choose the word to judges?" That actually is pretty close to the question I was trying to ask myself. It is clear as David points out that it is a shift in language doubtlessly reflecting some shift in conception. I was wondering if it wasnt justified in terms of clarity of conception and understanding. I can see it could easily be seen as unjustified in terms of accurate historical presevation of an ancient text.

My impression of Jewish attitudes inclines me to believe the Rabbis felt authorized to make the change. It is something they likely understood as within their calling.

With the term post Biblical David interposes a barrier between the Bible and the understanding of those people who read and preserved it, Rabbis. With this barrier it could be suggested that the Rabbis distorted because they made changes. Yet the Rabbis would see a trajectory of change in the text and in Isreals understanding which they desired to sustain and did so by alterting words.

I was thinking one could consider two general approaches to the meaning of a text. One would look for its meaning in what it creates in later readers. How is it understood. This approach may see meaning in unresolved questions buried in the Biblical text and find meaning in how later readers find solutions to those conflicts. If one is thinking this way about the Biblical text then the way first century Jews read it would be considered valid reflection.

It would be interesting to have more interpretive discussion preserved from people contermporary with say the early Kings. That would be a whole different approach to what the text means. There is also an approach looking for what ideas and beliefs went into the making of the text as stands. Instead of concentrating on where the meaning leads this would concentrate on where it came from.

Now interms of historical understanding both approaches could be equally meaningful. In terms of faith perhaps one is going to have ascendance over the other. I suspect David does not trust the path of developement in reading later in time. I am unsure why so asked.

To my understanding Isaiah would be something of a transition figure between an earlier council oriented view and the later view of normative Judism. As such it might be possible to go in circles about just what he intended with the "before me was no God made" statement.

I find myself considering that during his time Jehovahs authority could have been questioned, political difficulty would bring the idea of Isreals Gods control over events into question. Instead of fearing that Israels God had lost out in a power play the Gods of Babylon Isreal moves more to picturing its God in control of all the nations. That is a picture in some conflict with at least some principals of a divine council with other nations given to other Gods. I do not see a final resolution to that conflict in the clear direct statments in the OT yet it is a question left to the readers of the texts. (and those Rabbis felt authorized to use their mind and spritual awareness to speak answers)

[David Bokovoy]

Hello Huckelberry,

Sincere thanks for reading through the thread. Also, I really appreciate your thoughtful/well written responses.

==It is clear as David points out that it is a shift in language doubtlessly reflecting some shift in conception.

Agreed. This point is very, very clear.

==I was wondering if it wasnt justified in terms of clarity of conception and understanding. I can see it could easily be seen as unjustified in terms of accurate historical presevation of an ancient text.

I believe that these changes did reconcile the Rabbi's monotheistic views with scriptural texts they viewed as religiously authoritative. I don't view these changes as malicious by any stretch. I believe that you are correct that the Rabbis felt that they were, in fact, preserving the proper interpretation.

Like most contemporary Christians, I'm sure the early Rabbis couldn't begin to fathom that biblical authors actually believed in the existence of multiple deities.

However, one of the ponts that can't be overlooked in this discussion, includes the fact that we now know that Exodus 21-22 derives directly from the Laws of Hammurabi. Hence the phrase "before God" in the Covenant Collection reflects the Akkadian expression mahar ilim, i.e. "before God."

For those who want to read "judges" for "elohim" there really is no way around this point.

Besides, given the fact that a word for "judges" does exist in Hebrew, as we see from the Aramaic revision, why wouldn't the author have simply used the word "judges" instead of the word "Gods" if the author meant "judges"?

I think he meant what he said, and he said what he meant.

==My impression of Jewish attitudes inclines me to believe the Rabbis felt authorized to make the change. It is something they likely understood as within their calling.

I'm sure they felt authorized to make these changes.

==If one is thinking this way about the Biblical text then the way first century Jews read it would be considered valid reflection.

Intellectually, I certainly cannot argue against the possibility that this historical development was valid. I personally do not believe that it was, but my personal beliefs do no carry much weight in a historical consideration of the development of Israelite/Jewish religious views.

We can debate whether these changes were inspired, but as you suggest, we really can't debate the fact that the changes took place.

==To my understanding Isaiah would be something of a transition figure between an earlier council oriented view and the later view of normative Judaism.

I don't agree with this statement. Both Isaiah and Deutero-Isaiah rely heavily on the standard view of a divine council of deities. Both prophets--assuming they were in fact distinct persons--interacted with this council in Isaiah 6 and Isaiah 40.

==As such, it might be possible to go in circles about just what he intended with the "before me was no God made" statement.

Not at all. These are the only statements in the Bible that seem to approach monotheism. Everything else is clearly henotheistic. When read in proper context, therefore, they make no such move.

As I explained to William, given the clear henotheistic theological stance in the Old Testament, these statements simply mean that Yahweh was ontologically preeminent amongst the deities he created: before him there were no other gods made.

In Isaiah 47:8,10 Babylon says to herself,

[Ron Beron]

What do you mean by "generally", whom are you speaking of here? What would you offer as proof of this?

My only proof comes from the scholarship of others, specifically Frank Moore Cross and Mark S. Smith especially his book, The Early History of God. I agree with David these are not extreme ideas but fairly mainstream among current scholarship. I would imagine the only dissidents would be more conservative academics.

Yes and no, Israel certainly did worship the nations gods, but were punished and warned not to because they were false,

More the reason to believe that they were worshipped. The fact that they were warned not to do something is evidence that they did just that. Prior to the 8th century multiple worship was the norm.

Obedient Israel adopted the names and attributes of certain Canaanite deities and applied them to the one true God, showing that the nations gods were indeed false.

How do you see this?

Asherah is mentioned in the Bible about 40 times, from Exodus to Micah, which one of these would you take a proof text that Obedient Israel worshipped her?

Unless I missed one, they all are in the negative to her, supporting the fact that the Bible is a correction notice to Israel not to get involved with the nations mythical gods.

You are certainly correct, but one, the references were more than likely edited by the legalist Deuteronomists and secondly, the very fact that the prophets of Israel proffered reforms to rid the nation of asherah makes it ever so much more likely of its widespread worship.

Again, the Bible is a correction notice and tells Israel who the true and living God is. A central theme of the OT is for the people to turn away from idol worship and false deities and worship and believe in the true and living God

Absolutely, the question is to turn away from what? The worship of false god which was widespread. The ancient Israelite worshipped gods other than the true one, false ones to be sure, but still gods. The prophets after the 8th century represented a departure from the norm not representative of it.

"Seest thou not what they do in the cities of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem? The children gather wood, and the fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead their dough, to make cakes to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto other gods, that they may provoke me to anger."