Is The Translation Of The Bible Inspired?

[SolarPowered]

But in General Conferences and in official Church magazines, elohim is identified consistently as the Father of all, and God Most High.

...

To designate is simply to call or name. God the Father is called elohim. Designate is as good a word as any.

...

Even Meservy, whom Bokovoy cites, explicitly declared what I have been saying here:

"Latter-day Saints use the name Elohim in a more restrictive sense as a proper name-title identifying the Father in Heaven."

These points that you make support exactly what Bokovoy said: We have for some time consistently used the name-title "Elohim" to refer the God the Father. You seem to want to find a problem where there is none. The statement by the First Presidency and the statement by Mr. Meservy both clearly indicate that they recognize that there are other uses for these names.

[urroner]

These points that you make support exactly what Bokovoy said: We have for some time consistently used the name-title "Elohim" to refer the God the Father. You seem to want to find a problem where there is none. The statement by the First Presidency and the statement by Mr. Meservy both clearly indicate that they understand that there are other uses for these names.

I don't think Jason is paying any attention to the posts that demonstrate why he is so plainly wrong in his accusation.

[JasonH]

Hmmm, I have told you several times that elohim also means the members of the Council of God. Did you see them and choose to ignore that or did you not see those several posts?

I am aware that this is what it means, in scholarship. Did you get that yet? In scholarship.

But what it means in scholarship is not the issue. What it means in LDS doctrine is the issue. In LDS teaching elohim has historically been referred to God the Father, and this has been true as early as 1845, just fifteen years after the Church was created. So it is incorrect to refer to it as a "recent" development, and it is incorrect for Bokovoy to suggest it was something the First Presidency decided to "move" towards around 1916.

According to Boyd Kirkland's Sunstone article (9:2)-

"The gods involved in the creation were designated in Joseph's temple endowment ceremony as Elohim, Jehovah, and Michael ... I am assuming here, in the absence of direct documentation, the Nauvoo temple gods mentioned in Heber C. Kimball's journal in an entry dated 13 December 1845 (the year following Joseph Smith's death), were the same as had been given by Joseph himself. On the accuracy of Brigham Young's transmitting the endowment to the Church as it had been given privately by Joseph Smith, see Andrew F. Ehat, "Joseph Smith's Introduction of Temple Ordinances and the 1844 Mormon Succession Question" (Master's thesis, Brigham Young University, 1982), p. 255 n. 72.

These points that you make support exactly what Bokovoy said: We have for some time consistently used the name-title "Elohim" to refer the God the Father. You seem to want to find a problem where there is none.

For some time? Since 1845 is "for some time"?

The problem is that this designation is not supportable in biblical scholarship. This is important because the so-called elohim connection is central to this apologetic claim of plain and precious truths being removed from scripture. The earliest doctrine that scholars can extract from the Bible only resembles LDS doctrine on a superficial level. When critically analyzed it is clear the two are not the same, and are in fact fundamentally different.

And further, Bokovoy is saying much more that he cannot substantiate, nor has he even begun to substantiate it: that in 1916 the Church decided to "move" towards this designation out of convenience, and not because it is necessarily a revealed truth.

The statement by the First Presidency and the statement by Mr. Meservy both clearly indicate that they recognize that there are other uses for these names.

You cannot be serious. Where does the First Presidency say elohim has any other meaning other than God the Father? This is the point I have been challenging from the beginning, but neither of you have been able to produce a single example. All you have done is throw a FARMS review at me, as if this does the trick. It doesn't. Bokovoy was sloppy on this point, as I have illustrated. The endowment ceremony is not a trivial matter as he would prefer to suggest. It teaches us things that cannot be learned elsewhere, and one of the most reiterated points is the name of God the Father, who is called elohim by his son and other divine beings. None of the other divine beings are called elohim in the temple.

I don't think Jason is paying any attention to the posts that demonstrate why he is so plainly wrong in his accusation.

My accusation? I am just expecting a single reference to back up your claims. None of your posts have presented a single example whereby a Church official declares elohim to mean anything other than God the Father. You'll probably find some ad hoc apologetic articles which try to make sense of the obvious conflict the KJV has with the LDS teaching that Jesus is Jehovah (since the KJV clearly refers to the Father as Jehovah on a few occasions) but this in itself doesn't change the fact that LDS doctrine teaches that elohim is God the Father, and that there is no other meaning.

[SolarPowered]

The problem is that this designation is not supportable in biblical scholarship.

1. It doesn't matter whether it is supportable in biblical scholarship or not. There is no claim that "biblical scholarship" is why we use the title in the way that we do.

2. In any case, the Bible does frequently use the term "Elohim" to refer to God the Father, so I don't really see any biblical problem with this designation.

This is important because the so-called elohim connection is central to this apologetic claim of plain and precious truths being removed from scripture.

Perhaps it is central to you. I certainly don't consider it central to any major apologetic claim.

The earliest doctrine that scholars can extract from the Bible only resembles LDS doctrine on a superficial level. When critically analyzed it is clear the two are not the same, and are in fact fundamentally different.

1. The jury is most definately still out on this issue.

2. The Documentary Hypothesis would have that the scriptures have been redacted specifically on this subject. In that case, this would be an example of "plain and precious things" that have been taken from the Bible.

3. From an apologetic point of view, I am just fine with the biblical text being somewhat at variance with LDS doctrine. When statements that Joseph Smith made that sounded completely incompatible with the Bible turn out to actually be very similar to what scholars are now saying about the Bible, that gives a great deal of support to the proposition that Joseph was in fact a prophet of God. I don't doubt that, as more is learned about the scriptures, the gap between what Joseph taught and what is understood from the historical record will continue to close.

You cannot be serious. Where does the First Presidency say elohim has any other meaning other than God the Father? This is the point I have been challenging from the beginning, but neither of you have been able to produce a single example.

Their statement read, "God the Eternal Father, whom we designate by the exalted name-title Elohim..." If they had wanted to say, "whose name is Elohim", they would have said that. The fact that they said "whom we designate by the exalted name-title Elohim" indicates that they understood that the naming of God the Father and/or the meaning(s) of the word "Elohim" is more complex than just "His name is 'Elohim'."

[Pepcigirl]

I can just repeat what I have heard and read:

The Bible is the word of God, and God has preserved his word intact. He is God and can do anything; certainly he can preserve the Bible as he intends it to be.

This is a response [modified] to a question I answered on another Board which fits here:

King James Version - Textus Receptus/Majority Text: based on the vast majority of manuscripts still in existence. These MSS brought together by Erasmus & others to form the texts known as Textus Receptus. When the early Protestant Reformers of the 16th/17th centuries decided to translate the scriptures directly from the Greek into the languages of Europe, they selected the Textus Receptus as their foundation Greek document.

Textus Receptus based on vast majority (90%) of the 5000+ Greek manuscripts in exisitence hence the name Majority Text.

Modern Translations of Bible - example NIV - taken from the Minority Texts - 10% of existing Minority/Neutral texts manuscripts (Neutal sometimes agree with Textus Receptus/sometimes with Minority. Minority also known as Alexandrian Texts. Rejected by early Christians and also by all the Protestant Reformers of 16th/17th century; considered them unfit for translation purposes. Example of reasons: Texts have many alterations on a single manuscript, omits verses, contradictions, doctrinally weak, Egyptian scribes who did not accept Jesus as Son of God.

Minority Texts two most prominant manuscripts which most modern translations heavily rely on - Codex Sinaiticus (ALEPH) and Codex Vaticanus - B.

3 examples of many differences between KJV (Majority Text) & NIV (Minority Text):

1. John 4:42 - Omits Christ and adds "man":

KJV: And said unto the woman, now we believe, not because of thy saying: for we have heard him ourselves, and know this is indeed THE CHRIST, the Saviour of the world.

NIV: They said to the woman, "We no longer believe just because of what you said; now we have heard for ourselves, and we know that THIS MAN is the Saviour of the world.

2. Luke 2:33 - NIV changes "Joseph" to "the child's father" -questioning the virgin birth!

KJV: And JOSEPH and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him.

NIV: The CHILD'S FATHER and mother marvelled at what was said about him.

3. Mark 15:28 - NIV removes whole verse

KJV: And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, And he was numbered with the transgressors.

There are so many differences between Majority and Minority it was hard to choose which ones to use.

So it really boils down to deciding which set of manuscripts are the most correct -the Majority Texts or the Minority Texts. Both canot be correct.

Modern branches of todays Christianity cannot agree on which Biblical Texts are correct since there are those churches that will only use the KJV from the Majority Text and condemn other versions because they are translated from the Minority Text.

[SolarPowered]

King James Version - Textus Receptus/Majority Text: based on the vast majority of manuscripts still in existence. These MSS brought together by Erasmus & others to form the texts known as Textus Receptus. When the early Protestant Reformers of the 16th/17th centuries decided to translate the scriptures directly from the Greek into the languages of Europe, they selected the Textus Receptus as their foundation Greek document.

Textus Receptus based on vast majority (90%) of the 5000+ Greek manuscripts in exisitence hence the name Majority Text.

This is at variance with my understanding. The text published by Erasmus, which is the text that underlies the KJV, is the text that is known as the Textus Receptus (TR). The "Majority Text" is the generic name for the Byzantine tradition of texts, which is the textual tradition from which the texts underlying the TR originated. It is, however, not a specific text. The TR itself is far less comprehensive than you state:

Erasmus... only had six Greek manuscripts immediately accessible to him in Basel. They all dated from the 12th Century or later, and only one came from outside the mainstream Byzantine tradition. Consequently most modern scholars consider his text to be of dubious quality.

Bruce Metzger, The Text of the New Testament, p. 99, as quoted in: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textus_Receptus.

[urroner]

From wikipedia;

In The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (sometimes referred to as the LDS Church or "Mormons"), the term Elohim (also spelled "Eloheim") is often used to distinguish God the Father as a distinct member of the Godhead.

The plural sense of "Elohim" is generally recognized by the LDS Church as meaning "the council of the gods" in the creation story. This is particularly evident in chapter 4 of the Book of Abraham in the Pearl of Great Price.

I don't see the word "scholar" written in there anywhere.

In the Book of Abraham, when it says "the gods," it could easily be translated to say "elohim."," since is what elohim means. These are beings who sat upon the council of God.

But then again, there are beginning to be many Evangelical scholars who are beginning to agree with this where before they said we were just a bunch of loony Mormons who knew nothing.

[JasonH]

It doesn't matter whether it is supportable in biblical scholarship or not.

So it only matters when it is supportable. Got it.

There is no claim that "biblical scholarship" is why we use the title in the way that we do.

True, but I never said that was the claim. I asked for evidence that scholarship has unveiled a plain and precious truth which Joseph Smith successfully restored. The elohim argument is often raised as strong evidence. I have since demonstrated that the biblical elohim is not the elohim in historical or contemporary Mormonism. Elohim is repeatedly called God the Father in Mormonism whereas in scholarship, the word simply means a class of beings who are divine.

In any case, the Bible does frequently use the term "Elohim" to refer to God the Father, so I don't really see any biblical problem with this designation.

The problem is that the Bible also refers to humans and evil spirits as elohim. Elohim is not the personal name-title for God the Father. He is occasionally called elohim the same as other divine beings. Why? Because he is also a divine being. This has no resemblance to the Mormon understanding and usage of the term.

Perhaps it is central to you. I certainly don't consider it central to any major apologetic claim.

You cannot be serious? The elohim issue has aroused excitement from every apologist on the block. Everyone keeps using it as evidence that Joseph Smith was divinely inspired. You seriously don't mean to suggest this is not the case.

The jury is most definately still out on this issue.

No it isn't. At least not in scholarship. Only the LDS apologists are holding out some kind of excited hope that one day it will be shown elohim is actually the biblical name of God.

The Documentary Hypothesis would have that the scriptures have been redacted specifically on this subject. In that case, this would be an example of "plain and precious things" that have been taken from the Bible.

I'm aware of the JEDP, and it doesn't really help the Mormon case here. If God had a personal name by which he was officially identified, it was El, not elohim. I have never even read an article or paper in biblical scholarship suggesting the possibility that it was elohim. It doesn't seem to be considered or entertained except in the minds of LDS apologists.

From an apologetic point of view, I am just fine with the biblical text being somewhat at variance with LDS doctrine.

The problem I have is that this variance is regularly presented as a revelation hit for Smith.

When statements that Joseph Smith made that sounded completely incompatible with the Bible turn out to actually be very similar to what scholars are now saying about the Bible, that gives a great deal of support to the proposition that Joseph was in fact a prophet of God.

OK. Like what? I had asked for examples but so far nothing of substance has been provided. The elohim issue doesn't work, and even if it did, Joseph Smith claimed to have found out about this through his Hebrew studies. It wasn't through revelation.

I don't doubt that, as more is learned about the scriptures, the gap between what Joseph taught and what is understood from the historical record will continue to close.

This presumes it is closing to begin with.

But you guys have not produced one single unambiguous example whereby Joseph Smith got a definitive hit that must be explained through supernatural means. But at the same time you're willing to dismiss the plethora of misses by claiming the discrepancies were due to textual corruption or what not. This is a predesigned win-win paradigm. As Dan Vogel once said, Mormons do not allow a fault system for Joseph Smith "If you find similarities, that becomes evidence for his inspiration. If not, then it's new revelation. If similar but different, then it's a restoration of a corrupted transmission.”

Their statement read, "God the Eternal Father, whom we designate by the exalted name-title Elohim..." If they had wanted to say, "whose name is Elohim", they would have said that.

Oh give me a break. Why give God a name-title at all if it were not important! What is wrong with "God the Father." Now you are going to rest your case on a historical psychoanalysis of what you think the FP would have said if they really meant that. As I said, designate is a perfectly good word to use here. There is nothing ambiguous or abstract about it and no reason to reinterpret an obvious statement. According to your argument, many of the official statements of the Church can be twisted to mean something less than definitive. All it requires is a semantic twist and a dash of psychoanalysis. For example, Mormons don't really know the 13 articles of faith are true because each one says they "believe" they are true.

The fact that they said "whom we designate by the exalted name-title Elohim" indicates that they understood that the naming of God the Father and/or the meaning(s) of the word "Elohim" is more complex than just "His name is 'Elohim'."

It indicates no such thing. What a weak piece of evidence. It could simply be that this is a sacred truth revealed in the temple and they don't want to directly elaborate on it for that reason. It would be hardly shocking to see the FP dabble in cryptic language anyway; like the proclamation about the Family not explicitly declaring God to be married with a wife, or the Hinckley interviews with the media that have sparked so much controversy about what he didn't or really meant to say.

In any event, this singular statement hardly makes yours and Bokovoy's case. This designation did not begin in 1916. It was used as early as 1845, and there is strong indication that it was implemented by Joseph Smith in the endowment ceremony before his death. This evidence has been around for quite some time, but it doesn't jive with the current apologetic theory, so it was ignored.

[SolarPowered]

Jason, I don't have time to continue arguing this tempest in a thimble with you. I have made my points; you have rejected them; I continue to stand by my points. There is simply no problem here, even though you seem bound and determined to create one.

Good day, sir.

[urroner]

Jason, I don't have time to continue arguing this tempest in a thimble with you. I have made my points; you have rejected them; I continue to stand by my points. There is simply no problem here, even though you seem bound and determined to create one.

Good day, sir.

SP, Jason hasn't even tried addressing any of the comments we have made or the questions we have raised other than with his waving his hands around and giving an opinion. He probably realizes that he can't handle the truth and so he closes his eyes, hoping beyond hope that the truth will change to meet his expectations and desires.

[Ron Beron]

My question would be essentially, what is inspired? Inspiration means "a divine influence directly and immediately exerted upon the mind or soul". This could mean anything. It does not mean that the scriptures are the literal word and mind of God. It does mean that individuals within their time and place are can be influenced by the divine that is within us or without. I prefer to think that inspiration is something of a hyper-reality which seeks to explain that which is unknown in our lives. While we have scientists and engineers to explain the mundane realities our lives we need the prophets and theologians to explain that little spot in our souls that cannot be found elsewhere. Scriptures, in general, the Bible, and the restored works in particular follow this dictum. While I cannot accept the historicity of much of any of the works I can say that those who authored the works were under this inspiration that sought to explain the hyper-realities of our environment.

[William the Conqueror]

Textual criticism has done a lot to help, except the problem is so immense anymore,

think of all the billions of people whom have gotten wrong info.

Correcting something is very good but basically its too late after the fact for billions.

And also the "misstranslations" are being printed out far faster than can be corrected nowdays.

And also the "misstranslations"

What about the Joseph Smith translation?

[e=mc2]

Json H:

To call the Father elohim is like me calling my father, "Human."

BUT HE IS isn't he?

[e=mc2]

Jason H:

that identify Jesus as wisdom personified.

And the Jews before them identified Wisdom as God's BRIDE.

[Sargon]

Biblical scholarship: elohim = divine beings.

Historic/Official LDS teaching: elohim = God the Father

It is really that simple.

Historic/Official LDS teaching:

The purport of these scriptures is to the effect that God the Eternal Father, whom we designate by the exalted name-title "Elohim," is the literal Parent of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, and of the spirits of the human race.

I may be late in pointing this out, since I didn't read the entire thread, but in 1916 the First Presidency issued this essay that very neatly explains our position. Note that it says "name-title", an obvious acknowledgment that the name Elohim is a title that is being used as a name. Joseph Smith affirmed that "elohim" refers to multiple beings, and the First Presidency later decided to designate the common "name-title" as a way in which God the Father could be referred to.

It is that simple.

Sargon

[jadams_4242]

I ask this because I honestly don't know, but what is the oldest existing copy of the NT that is available? It is claimed that the current translations are pretty accurate (I have no reason to dispute this) I just wonder how anyone could know this and what is it that they are comparing it to?

This field if study is sssoooooo open its crazy! There is so much info on this.

Some versions have been "grossly" changed in meaning and writ, While others are "fairly" well

original. the k.j.v. has even been misstranslated over the 1000,s of years not to a extreme

extent, but it has been wrongly worded, verses and books removed or added, especially in the last

100 years or so. usually in the good old u.s.of a, we seem to beleive the wording needs to be changed

in order for "modern" man to understand it??????

[JasonH]

Jason hasn't even tried addressing any of the comments we have made or the questions we have raised other than with his waving his hands around and giving an opinion.

What comment hasnâ??t been addressed? Name any. We all agree that elohim refers to God the Father in LDS doctrine. Where we disagree is why he is called elohim.

I say the sheer volume of LDS literature alone, that emphasizes this point, strongly suggests this is no minor point. What makes it even more important is its implementation into the temple endowment ceremony, which has stood the test of time since 1845 â?? not â??recently.â?

You say the name is not necessarily important since a 1916 statement called it a â??designation.â? That is the sum total of your argument. A psychoanalytical reading which says if they meant X, they would have chosen a different word. This is an incoherent argument since â??designationâ? is a perfectly good word to use in this context. Jesus is also designated the name â??Jehovahâ? and Adam is also designated the name â??Michael.â? This designation is because that is what their names are believed to be.

You guys are also suggesting this was a â??recentâ? development. You asserted it, but never demonstrated it. All you did was throw a FARMS review at me which was written by someone who also asserted it. I responded to that assertion with evidence to the contrary, and thus far nobody has even acknowledged it.

He probably realizes that he can't handle the truth

The truth? The truth is I am the only person here who has bothered to research any of this. Apparently, for some it is simply enough to pull out a FARMS review and consider the matter closed.

and so he closes his eyes, hoping beyond hope that the truth will change to meet his expectations and desires.

Rhetoric wonâ??t validate your argument either â?? it requires that pesky little thing called evidence. Of course I have addressed your comments. Calling your comments â??truthâ? while refusing to address my comments must be quite comforting. However, in the end you still havenâ??t addressed the points.

[SolarPowered]

We all agree that elohim refers to God the Father in LDS doctrine. Where we disagree is why he is called elohim.

Jason,

You seem to be the only one in this discussion who really cares why we call Him "Elohim." The answer to that question would appear to be probative of very little.

The obvious answers to that question, which you appear to be quite aware of, are that the usage originates in the Endowment, where that is the term/name that He revealed to be used in that ordinance. And that over time, we have adopted that name to refer to Him in general.

So what does that have to do with anything?

[Ron Beron]

Jason H:

And the Jews before them identified Wisdom as God's BRIDE.

Wasn't there a location in the OT that could indicate that Wisdom or Hokma was also the "daughter" of El or Ya?

[Zakuska]

Jesus is also designated the name “Jehovah” and Adam is also designated the name “Michael.” This designation is because that is what their names are believed to be.

You missed a few:

Jesus is actual Yeshua

James his brother is actually Yacobus (ie Jacob) (King Follete Discourse)

Jesus is also refered to by the name/title: The Rock, The Branch, The Lamb, as well as the Name/Title Adam (1 Cor. 15: 45)

[JasonH]

So what does that have to do with anything?

Well, obviously it undermines the apologetic argument that says biblical scholarship’s recent studies of elohim have demonstrated Joseph Smith to have been a man who received divine revelation on the matter. Again, elohim was revealed to Joseph Smith as the name of God probably before 1845, and he implemented it in the temple endowment which has gone unchanged ever since. Since elohim is not the name-title for God the Father, this in and of itself proves Joseph Smith’s revelation was at odds with biblical scholarship since biblical scholarship has another explanation for the term.

So how does modern scholarship offer evidence, with respect to the elohim issue, that Joseph Smith was a prophet?

Quite simply, it doesn’t. This is my point. Smith learned about the plural aspect of elohim from his Hebrew studies.

[Zakuska]

Quite simply, it doesn’t. This is my point. Smith learned about the plural aspect of elohim from his Hebrew studies.

And this invalidates the claim of Joseph Smith as Prophet how exactly?

What ever happened to "Line upon Line Precept on Precept?"

What is it the Prophet Daniel said...

Dan. 9: 2

2 In the first year of his reign I Daniel understood by books the number of the years, whereof the word of the LORD came to Jeremiah the prophet, that he would accomplish seventy years in the desolations of Jerusalem.

Can't a Prophet learn something and be revealed something from books?

[SolarPowered]

Well, obviously it undermines the apologetic argument that says biblical scholarship’s recent studies of elohim have demonstrated Joseph Smith to have been a man who received divine revelation on the matter. Again, elohim was revealed to Joseph Smith as the name of God probably before 1845, and he implemented it in the temple endowment which has gone unchanged ever since. Since elohim is not the name-title for God the Father, this in and of itself proves Joseph Smith’s revelation was at odds with biblical scholarship since biblical scholarship has another explanation for the term.

So how does modern scholarship offer evidence, with respect to the elohim issue, that Joseph Smith was a prophet?

Quite simply, it doesn’t. This is my point. Smith learned about the plural aspect of elohim from his Hebrew studies.

While I have seen a good deal of discussion in scholarly circles about The Elohim and the Divine Counsel, I'm afraid that I haven't seen any apologist discussion purporting that the use of "Elohim" in the Endowment is an apologetic "hit." For one thing, apologists don't generally make such arguments about the contents of the Endowment, because this ordinance is, for practical purposes, secret, and it makes little sense to make an argument that relies on information that the hearer does not have available to them. And more fundamentally, it makes no sense to try to argue for an apologetic "hit"--as you have pointed out, Joseph was obviously aware of the name from his study of Hebrew. I certainly would not take seriously anyone who attempted to make that agrument, nor have I seen anyone do so.

Again, I think you're trying to find a problem where the is none.

[Ron Beron]

Quite simply, it doesnâ??t. This is my point. Smith learned about the plural aspect of elohim from his Hebrew studies.

Hmmmm....I guess we can then rule out all of prophets and even Jesus Christ because they obviously had Hebrew studies as well.

[JasonH]

And this invalidates the claim of Joseph Smith as Prophet how exactly?

It doesn't.

You guys aren't catching on. This isn't about invalidating Joseph Smith. It is about invalidating a piece of evidence which allegedly validates him. I am pointing out the fact that the LDS notion of plural gods (which is the only thing they have gotten right about elohim) wasn't revelation based. It was based on Joseph Smith's study of Hebrew, which he even said was corroborated with Jewish Rabbis he had studied with.

While I have seen a good deal of discussion in scholarly circles about The Elohim and the Divine Counsel, I'm afraid that I haven't seen any apologist discussion purporting that the use of "Elohim" in the Endowment is an apologetic "hit." For one thing, apologists don't generally make such arguments about the contents of the Endowment, because this ordinance is, for practical purposes, secret, and it makes little sense to make an argument that relies on information that the hearer does not have available to them.

You're right, but I never said the apologetic argument was about the endowment or even referred to the endowment. The apologetic argument I have heard for several years now is about how the LDS concept of Elohim and Jehovah (the latter being a son of the former) has been validated in scholarship. Yes, Jehovah was during one period considered a divine son of the Father (though even this is debated in scholarly circles) but what the apologists don't tell you is that the Father, according to biblical scholars, is El Elyon, not Elohim. This poses a "problem" to those who want to use this subject as evidence for Joseph Smith's divine inspiration. He didn't get the name right. And the apologists never bring up the origin of elohim's meaning in Mormonism, which of course, is the earliest endowment ceremony. That is what I have been doing in this thread.

In so doing, I am demonstrating its significance while others are trying to downplay it. Elohim was revealed to the prophet as God the Father's name. It is reiterated in the endowment ceremony numerous times as the other divine beings (elohim in scholarship) refer to the Father as Elohim. It is reiterated in LDS literature as well as conference talks over the course of 150+ years. Its significance cannot be mitigated simply because FARMS publishes an article written by an apologist who decided to psychoanalyze a 1916 statement and read too much into the word "designate." It is easy to assume the meaning of elohim in Mormonism really isn't important if you ignore all the pre-1916 evidence in its favor. This is not some recent development as urroner asserted.

And more fundamentally, it makes no sense to try to argue for an apologetic "hit"--as you have pointed out, Joseph was obviously aware of the name from his study of Hebrew.

I couldn't agree more. But you'll have problems trying to convince Bokovoy of this. He claims to find hits in virtually everything and then asserts that the mere quantity of hits (no matter how superficial and dubious they might be) represent some kind of obstacle for critics.

I certainly would not take seriously anyone who attempted to make that agrument, nor have I seen anyone do so. Again, I think you're trying to find a problem where the is none.

No, the problem exists only for those who make these arguments. That you're unaware of them explains much of the confusion in this thread. But these arguments exist. Try reading more of Bokovoy here and on the other forum.

EDIT: I found this statement interesting because it is patently untrue.

"Asherah who was once thought to be the consort of Elohim."

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publicatio...sights/23-4.pdf

This is incorrect. Try googling the phrase "consort of elohim" on the web and you'll hit only one page ... FARMS!

Biblical scholarship maintains that Asherah was a consort to Yahweh. Why does the FARMS Insights say she was a consort of Elohim? To arouse excitement in the Mormon readers who know perfectly well that Elohim as a proper name of the Father is a unique teaching only to Mormonism? In scholarship Asherah is considered a consort to what Mormonism considers Jesus: Yahweh/Jehovah. But Asherah is also called Wisdom and there are many connections between the two. At the same time, however, there are also numerous New Testament indicators that Jesus is Wisdom. The situation becomes fairly abstract and complex when trying to make head or tails of it all but some of it supports theological foundation which was used to develop the Trinity. In fact, much of it only makes sense in this context.

There is simply no evidence to support a Mormon-type celestial family whereby Elohim is the Father of Jehovah and husband to Asherah. But the evidence above illustrates just one example how the apologetic front is trying to imply otherwise.