Is The Translation Of The Bible Inspired?

[e=mc2]

JasonH:

There is simply no evidence to support a Mormon-type celestial family whereby Elohim is the Father of Jehovah and husband to Asherah.

Yes there is. I have podcasts discussing this, (see here http://www.backyardprofessor.com/the_backy...sts/index.html)

as well as a bit of research on my Mormonism Researched webpage. And just recently Mark S. Smith has shown the Ugaritic notion of the ancient patter of the FAMILY of the Gods, with Father, Mother, Son, and Daughter. I have no idea where ya been there boy, but you is way, WAY behind the times.

El has a wife named Anath (often called "the progenitress of the gods") and they have a son, who appears as a storm god, perhaps Shaddai himself, according to Albright. Another one of Elsâ?? wives was Asherah, commonly called his consort or wife. Elâ??s council of gods are called "the holy ones," usually associated with his consort as well. "Thus we find in Ugarit alongside ilm/bn qdsh, - "the gods/holy sons," "the gods, the sons of Athirat," which "proves" that the sons of the mother-goddess Asherah are identical with the sons of El, "the holy ones."

El is "the bull" or "the father bull." We read in a poem of Baal and Anath, of a prince Yamm who wishes to build a palace, wherein a prayer is offered beginning "Thy father Bull El favors Prince Yamm...[...]... [sh]ould thy father Bull [E]l hear thee...." The reason for this epithet in archaeological information gleaned from various texts around the ancient Near East is the concept of "fertilizing power," or "virility." Many of these bulls with men are pictured on cylinder seals from the ancient Akkadian world. The exact counterpart to this in Egypt was Min, the god of fertility par excellence, whose sacred animal was the bull. Both Min and Amun were called "Bull of his mother," clearly reflecting the fertility aspect of their nature. The Pharaoh was often called the ka nkt - "the victorious bull."

The Ka-bull besides having sexual connotations also indicates "the highest hierarchal position within a group." El "proves" this as he is the head of the council of the gods, and Baâ??al has to approach Elâ??s throne reverently. The ha-Elohim of Gen. 5:22, 24, may reflect an earlier source in which Enoch entered the assembly of gods or angels. El, the Patriarch of the gods; the creator; the highest conceivable god; the leader; the father of the gods; the head god of the council of all gods; the number one god, who fought to establish his headship in the family of the gods, as Frank Moore Cross remarks, (hence certainly a victorious bull!) also had a father, and so on and so on. This is the El Elyon of the Bible, archaeologically speaking here. He is also called El Olam, "the God of Eternity", and is sometimes described as an old man with a grey beard. The Gnostic Tripartite Tractate, notes this same principle in later Christian times also: "Yet he is not like a solitary individual. Otherwise, how could he be a father? For whenever there is a father, it follows that there is a son."

These epithets of El leave us with no doubt concerning his being a fertility god. This is the same El as the El elohe yisraâ??el, meaning "El, god of (the Patriarch) Israel," (Gen. 33:22). El is the father and creator. He is sometimes called abu baniâ?? ili meaning "father of the gods." It is noteworthy that the patriarchal god Abir Yaâ??qob, "the bull of Jacob," is known. Bible archaeologists say that the presence of bulls in the pantheons of the Gods was a natural and proper object or animal, especially for supplicating for protection and fertility.

When critics against Mormonism declare the idea of a Heavenly Mother to be grossly and wildly wrong, it is obvious they have not consulted archaeology. The Mother Goddess of European, and ancient Near Eastern lands is one of the firmest established archaeological discoveries of the last century.

Since the Bible never stigmatizes the Canaanite worship of El, whose authority in the societies affairs was recognized by the Bible Patriarchs, we need to recognize the seriousness of the archaeological "proof" concerning him and his family. Asherah, the mother-goddess, was his consort, that is wife, while Baal was the executive god, as it were, of the pantheon of gods. The archaeological discoveries of the Bible God "proves" that the pantheon or divine council of Gods was polytheistic. Many ancient civilizations understood this concept as in the Scandinavian north countries our Norse ancestors had the Old Norse word regin which meant "the gods (regin) sat in council in their judgment seat and directed the course of the worldâ??s events." Bible archaeologist G. Ernest Wright noted "The great polytheisms of Biblical times were by no means primitive religions, no matter the primitive features which survived within them."

[JasonH]

I am familiar with the literature you cite, and none of it supports the LDS doctrine of elohim as Father of all spirits. Nothing you just threw out on the table even addresses this.

I stick by my assertion which you don't seem to comprehend. I did not say there was no evidence for a mother in heaven. I did not say there was no evidence for a family in heaven. Straw man diversions aside, what I said was precisely what I said. You even quoted me.

I said the LDS system is unsupportable. Elohim is not the name of the Father God in Biblical scholarship. He is El Elyon as your own notes indicated - a role which was later assigned to Yahweh. The evidences for Asherah all point to Yahweh as her husband, not a deity named Elohim. So all you have is biblical scholarship saying the Mormon Jesus had a wife in heaven. This does not jive with Mormon doctrine at all.

You have a divine family system that originated in ancient Ugarit, sure. You also have child sacrifices. You also have idol worshiping of animal gods. You also have Asherah statues in the temple. You also had a different Yahweh for each temple location. None of this has been "restored" with Mormonism.

All of the family members are mixed around in a way that simply doesn't work in a Mormon context. But this is ignored or downplayed in apologetic material because it seems that for the apologist, it is simply enough to point to a pre-biblical family structure (Israelites who mimicked their contemporary Canaanite neighbors) and consider it evidence for the restoration. Everything that doesn't match must be considered a corruption in the text. With this kind of standard in reasoning, one can create whatever scenario he wants. But that is not how scholarship works. That is how apologetics works.

So ultimately you have Jesus (the son of the most high) married to the Queen of Heaven. But then again the Queen of heaven is the heavenly mother who gave birth to all spirits, including Jesus. Jesus did not marry his own mother according to Mormonism, so this one is best left alone. Then you have El who is the most high, who was never named Elohim as he is in Mormonism. What about the plethora of Ugaritic material referring to the most high as El... I guess they all had it wrong since Joseph Smith says its elohim, not El. And I suppose Israel should have been named Israelohim.

[LifeOnaPlate]

As a parenthetical re-railing of the thread, I thought a sermon given by Brigham Young July 8, 1855 was appropriate herein; and while I peruse over the backyard professors latest post, here's some thoughts on the infallibility of scripture in general. His words are amazing to me, and they ring as true as anything I've ever heard on the subject:

"â?¦I do not even believe that there is a single revelation, among the many God has given to the Church, that is perfect in its fulness. The revelations of God contain correct doctrine and principle, so far as they go; but it is impossible for the poor, weak, low, grovelling, sinful inhabitants of the earth to receive a revelation from the Almighty in all its perfections. He has to speak to us in a manner to meet the extent of our capacities..."

"If an angel should come into this congregation, or visit any individual of it, and use the language he uses in heaven, what would we be benefitted? Not any, because we could not understand a word he said. When angels came to visit mortals, they have to condescend to and assume, more or less, the condition of mortals, they have to descend to our capacities in order to communicate with us. I make these remarks to show you that the kingdom of Heaven is not yet complete upon the earth. Why? Because the people are not prepared to receive it in its completeness, for they are not complete or perfect themselves...

"The laws that the Lord has given are not fully perfect, because the people could not receive them in their perfect fulness; but they can receive a little here and a little there, a little to-day and a little to-morrow, a little more next week, and a little more in advance of that next year, if they make a wise improvement upon every little they receive; if they do not, they are left in the shade, and the light which the Lord reveals will appear darkness to them, and the kingdom of heaven will travel on and leave them groping. Hence, if we wish to act upon the fulness of the knowledge that the Lord designs to reveal, little by little, to the inhabitants of the earth, we must improve upon every little as it is revealed...

"When we first received the spirit of the Gospel, what was the world to us, with its grandeur, its riches, its elegance, its finery, its gaudy show, its glittering array of paltry honors, its empty titles, and every thing pertaining to it? Nothing but a shadow, when the Lord opened our minds and by the visions of His Spirit revealed to us a few of the things He had in reserve for the faithful, which were only, as it were, a drop in the bucket, compared to the ocean yet to be revealed. Yet that little made our hearts leap for joy, and we felt that we could forsake everything for the knowledge of Jesus Christ and the perfections that we saw in his character. Are you Saints still? If you are not, repent of your sins and do your first works," (Journal of Discourses 2:309).

[Paul D]

Is â??biblical inerrancyâ? -- in any sense of the term -- generally accepted by most Christian scholars?

That would depend on how you defined "Christian." For one would have to wonder upon what basis anyone could claim to be a Christian if one also believed that God or His revelation to man was somehow erroneous. So, if you're talking Liberal "Christian," or the one doubting biblical inerrancy, then no, it is not generally accepted. If you're talking Conservative "Christian," then yes, it is generally accepted.

If so, in what sense?

Verbal plenary. That the original manuscripts were inspired, only. Yet, because we have more than ample manuscript evidence from the copies made of the originals, we can know with 99% accuracy what was in those originals and hence can create equally accurate English translations of it. Therefore, as Sir Frederic Kenyon has written, "The Christian can take the whole Bible in his hand and say without fear or hesitation that he holds in it the true Word of God, handed down without essential loss from generation to generation throughout the centuries" (Sir Frederic Kenyon, Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts (London: Eyre & Spottiswoode, 1958), 55.

If not, how do most of those Christian scholars who do accept â??biblical inerrancyâ? generally define the term?

The inerrancy of Scripture means that Scripture in the original manuscripts does not affirm anything that is contrary to fact.â??Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), 90.

By this word we mean that the Scriptures possess the quality of freedom from error. They are exempt from the liability to mistake, incapable of error. In all their teachings they are in perfect accord with the truth.â??Edward J. Young, Thy Word is Truth (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1957), 113.

This doctrine of scriptural inerrancy, whether presented in the pages of the Bible itself, in church confessions, or by stalwart theologians, is never an academic curiosity or aside; it goes to the very heart of the trustworthiness and truth of the life-giving message of the gospel found in God's written Word. If the Bible is not wholly true, then our assurance of salvation has no dependable and divine warrant; it rests rather on the minimal and fallible authority of men.â??Greg L. Bahnsen, "The Inerrancy of the Autographa," in Inerrancy by Norman L. Geisler (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1980), 153-54.

Nonetheless, we must affirm that the copies and the translations are also the Word of God, to the degree that they preserve the original message. When we say they are the Word of God, we do not have in mind, of course, the original process of inspiration of the biblical writer. Rather, they are the Word of God in a derivative sense which attaches to the product. So it was possible for Paul to write to Timothy that all Scripture is inspired, although undoubtedly the Scripture that he was referring to was a copy and probably also a translation (the Septuagint) as well.â??Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1985), 240.

[Zakuska]

For one would have to wonder upon what basis anyone could claim to be a Christian if one also believed that God or His revelation to man was somehow erroneous.

Why?

(Eusebius (260-340 A.D.) The Bishop of Caesarea was a great admirer of Origen and a good friend of Constantine. He was called the greatest Christian who ever lived. Said he reigned "after he was dead" and that he was buried in a gold coffin in the midst of the twelve Apostles.

He delivered 50 copies of corrupt Bible manuscript from Origen's Hexapla (fifth column-Vatincanus) to Constantine. These were placed in Latin churches. Later, Jerome translated one of these into the Latin Vulgate edition.)

What is the "Greatest Christian who ever lived" doing distributing corrupted copies of the Bible to his Churches?

http://www.thebiblestudypage.com/preserve3.shtml

In fact what was it that Christ himself said about the scriptures?

John 5: 39

39

[LifeOnaPlate]

Paul D

As I quoted Brigham Young above I will add this thought: Even if the texts were perfectly preserved (which I don't believe they are,) God's truths are much broader than can be expressly described by the tongue of man.

[urroner]

Paul D

As I quoted Brigham Young above I will add this thought: Even if the texts were perfectly preserved (which I don't believe they are,) God's truths are much broader than can be expressly described by the tongue of man.

Plate, you are a silly man since you are Mormon. Don't you know your history of the Bible?

Back in the early days of the Christian Church, some men got together and fought bitterly about which books were scripture and which weren't and after many days, many, many days of fighting, they stuck a stick in the ground and said to God, "This far and no more. No more revelation from You. We have enough" and God humbly bowed His head and agreed.

Can't you understand this? First you want LifeOnaPlate and now you want EverythingOnaPlate. What are we to do with you?

[Doctor Steuss]

I have been studying a bit about the documentary hypothesis, and I have found it just fascinating. What LDS commentaries or papers are available to get a LDS perspective on this subject?

Sargon

In George Potter's book "Ten More Amazing Discoveries," he shows how the Book of Mormon potentially fits nicely in with the Documentary Hypothesis. It should be available at his website (it was a couple of months ago anyway).

Also, the Kevin Barney paper is in Dialogue and is called "Reflections on teh Documentary Hypothesis."

I don't know if structurecop is still in basic training, but you can try to shoot him a PM (he has studied the DH a lot more than I have and can probably give you several resources).

[Ron Beron]

I said the LDS system is unsupportable. Elohim is not the name of the Father God in Biblical scholarship. He is El Elyon as your own notes indicated - a role which was later assigned to Yahweh. The evidences for Asherah all point to Yahweh as her husband, not a deity named Elohim. So all you have is biblical scholarship saying the Mormon Jesus had a wife in heaven. This does not jive with Mormon doctrine at all.

I think a fundamental error here is that there is a presumption that Mormons worship/accept a Israelite pre-Babylonian concept of God. I don't believe we do. And if Mormonism is anything is that it is a restoration of the "church" that existed in the 1st century, as it was, and not a folk religion 1000 years earlier. The conceptualization of God in Jesus' time and that of 1000 BCE is eons apart.

The statement made by Kerry, and rightfully so, is that there is evidence for a mating of Ba'al/El with Asherah. Later, Yahweh subsumed this relationship as more and more southern tribes moved into Israel/Canaan. In Dever's book, "Did God Have a Wife?", he directly states that..."Canaanite mythological texts from Ugarit on the coast of Syria portray Asherah there as 'Lady Asherah of the Sea,'her name meaning 'She Who Treads /Subdues Sea.' Her role in the cult is as the consort of El, the principal make deity of the pantheon, as 'Mother of the Gods.' I don't think you can get any plainer that this.

[Ron Beron]

JasonH, writes,

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

Maybe my computer or at least my Google is broken, but I got all kinds of hits that were not FARMs related.

[Doctor Steuss]

Jehovah

If you're going to try to rail upon the LDS for name usage that doesn't follow "Biblical scholarship," then perhaps you should stop using this dubious and sloppy transliteration that is heavily dependent upon the German.

[edited to remove rude parenthetical statement... sorry, the nicotine patch just doesn't quite take the edge off]

[Doctor Steuss]

So am I to understand that the hundred or so years of references to God as elohim is just a matter of convenience, and not intended to say something important?

You make it sound like modern prophets, who are supposed to be annointed restorers of truth - since they receive revelation in order to get doctrinal details correct - decided to throw their hands up on the matter and just settle on the elohim designantion out of convenience.

I find that hard to swallow.

CFR?

It might surprise you that the hundred or so years of references to G-d as "G-d" was also a matter of convenience (as well as our calling the Messiah â??Jesusâ?). We tried our hardest to learn the Schemhamphoras, but it just didn't seem to fit well within our primary songs.

Oi vey.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Aw, shucks.

*kicks pebble*

[urroner]

JasonH, writes,

Maybe my computer or at least my Google is broken, but I got all kinds of hits that were not FARMs related.

If you goggle for the specific phrase "consort of elohim", then you only get one hit and that is FARMS, but if you do a google on the words "consort" and "elohim" then you get about 16,200 hits, big difference.

I also find it interesting that the phrase "consort of Elohim" was used in this paragraph:

In her seminars and public lectures, Barker, who is a Methodist and a trainer of Methodist preachers, treated a number of themes that were, to put it mildly, very congenial to her Latter-day Saint audience. She contended, for example, that a grasp of the ancient temple is essential to a proper understanding of the New Testament, and she noted the temple's connection with such matters as the story of creation, the veil (which, on one level at least, represents the flesh of mortality) separating this world from the realm of divine beings, ascension into the heavenly presence of God, and apotheosis (human divinization). She emphasized the significance of such figures as Enoch and Melchizedek, and the significance of the priesthood of Melchizedek, in the older Jewish tradition. Moreover, she devoted one morning of the seminar to a discussion of 'the Lost Lady of Israel,' Asherah, or Wisdom, who was once thought to be the consort of Elohim and was symbolized by a tree.1

So the paragraph was about Margaret Barker, a Methodist, and her belief. I think JasonH is barking up the wrong tree.

[Ron Beron]

If you goggle for the specific phrase "consort of elohim", then you only get one hit and that is FARMS, but if you do a google on the words "consort" and "elohim" then you get about 16,200 hits, big difference.

I didn't use the quotes. Since the quotes narrow the search to very specific areas the mistake make by JasonH is obvious.

[Doctor Steuss]

I think we need a new hymn (I'm sure that the Mo-Tab could at least get it quasi-right)...

I thank Thee every hour. Oh, mighty and gracious Vehu-Yeli-Sit-Aulem-Mahash-Lelah-Aka-Kahath-Hezi-Elad-Lav-Hahau-Yezel-Mebha-Heri-Haquem-Lau-Keli-Levo-Pahel-Nelak-Yiai-Melah-Chaho-Nethah-Haa-Yereth-Shaah-Riyi-Aum-Lekab...

And, I guess I will at least contribute one post that has something to do with the OP:

English Bible Translations

This site gives a brief synopsis of the various English Bible Translations. It also has several verse comparisons between versions (at the top, click on "Comparisons").

[Zakuska]

You know I think we are missing the point Jason is trying to make...

If Im reading the vibes I'm getting from his posts correctly... the argument goes something like this...

If he can show that Joseph's idea of Elohim as Plural form of God developed when he started studying the Hebrew this some how can invalidate the apologetic or more importantly the foundational claim of the first vision of seeing "two personages who's glory defy all description."

Am I correct Jason?

[Zakuska]

Wow Ahserah the tree of life... that sure makes the imagery come alive!

http://www.fossilizedcustoms.com/asherah.html

[SolarPowered]

Wow Ahserah the tree of life...

When I first read about "Nephi and his Asherah" on this board a few months ago, I thought to myself, "Here we have some folks who are seriously off the deep end into finding 'umbras and penumbras' of the Book of Mormon..."

Then recently I read Margaret Barkers Temple Theology. Wow! Now I see that the Asherah myth is exactly what was going on in Nephi's vision.

Which is particularly interesting because that was a vision coming from God...

[Zakuska]

From the page I linked... ***Warning*** Gore alert...

IS "ALLAH" THE SAME BEING AS YAHUAH?

To answer this, all one has to do is consider the source of some of the practices. Here's one to look at:

The followers of Yahuah do not practice the customs of Baal / Asherah worship. When the worshippers of Baal/Asherah implored their false mighty-one to answer them by fire, they cut themselves:

1Kings 18:28: "And they cried aloud, and CUT THEMSELVES AFTER THEIR MANNER WITH KNIVES AND LANCETS, till the blood gushed out upon them."

Here is what some Shiite Muslims do:

"The 6-year-old boy screamed and shook his head to avoid the razor blade. But his father held him firmly as Hajj Khodor parted the boy’s black hair and sliced his forehead three times with the blade.

I think this "Christian" forgot about something...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17978154/

http://skepticreview.blogspot.com/2007/04/...themselves.html

[JasonH]

If you goggle for the specific phrase "consort of elohim", then you only get one hit and that is FARMS, but if you do a google on the words "consort" and "elohim" then you get about 16,200 hits, big difference.

Well, naturally. Google Mit Romney and "Democrat" and you'll get a slew of hits too, but that doesn't make Romney a Democrat. The FARMS website is saying Asherah is Elohim's consort and it implies that this is something accepted or at least discussed in scholarship. This is not backed by scholarship.

So the paragraph was about Margaret Barker, a Methodist, and her belief. I think JasonH is barking up the wrong tree.

Let me get this straight. FARMS misrepresents Barker and I'm supposed to grill Barker for this. Margaret Barker never says Asherah is the consort of a divine being named Elohim. Whoever wrote that is misrepresenting her.

If he can show that Joseph's idea of Elohim as Plural form of God developed when he started studying the Hebrew this some how can invalidate the apologetic

Well that is only part of it, but I don't need to do much since Joseph Smith already made it clear he had gotten this knowledge from his Hebrew studies. He never said, "you should believe it because God told me." It was more along the lines of "you should believe it because learned Jews told me."

or more importantly the foundational claim of the first vision of seeing "two personages who's glory defy all description."

I am not addressing that at all. I am just addressing the common myth floating around in LDS apologia that says biblical scholarship regarding elohim somehow bolsters Mormon claims and further adds validity to Joseph Smith as a prophet.

[Doctor Steuss]

I am not addressing that at all. I am just addressing the common myth floating around in LDS apologia that says biblical scholarship regarding elohim somehow bolsters Mormon claims and further adds validity to Joseph Smith as a prophet.

Could you please cite a few examples of this "common myth"?

[Zakuska]

I started a new thread for it:

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php?showtopic=27161

[JasonH]

Could you please cite a few examples of this "common myth"?

You don't read much from Bokovoy do you? I certainly can't fault you for that.

Zakuska...

Clearly it would have been better for you not to have started another thread because it only draws more attention to this embarrassing error. But of course I realize you were confident that I was in the wrong and you could make me look foolish.

It seems your faith and confidence in FARMS scholarship has been misplaced.

Even the single scholar who Mormons have latched onto for dear life, will not support the Mormon notion of a married God named Elohim. Even though the FARMS newsletter said she would.

[Doctor Steuss]

You don't read much from Bokovoy do you? I certainly can't fault you for that.

I have read some of his stuff about the divine council of elohim. Is this the "common myth" you're referring to? If so, I believe that biblical scholarship does indeed support the concept of a divine council of gods/Gods. Some current biblical scholarship (such as that of the charitable and respectable Dr. Heiser) may not completely line up with past/present LDS thought, but LDS thought would be closer than what was being put forth during Joseph's times by the majority of "biblical Christianity."

Is this the "common myth," or is there something else regarding elohim that you were refering to?