Is The Translation Of The Bible Inspired?

[Zakuska]

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.

Actually you misread what Kevin said.

Go to the other thread and see.

[JasonH]

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

Bokovoy is convinced that Smith's understanding of elohim is proof of divine revelation. The fact that he was learning Hebrew and used his teachers as witnesses to his new discovery, appears to matter nothing at all to him.

But then, we're dealing with a guy who finds a parallel in just about everything. If Joseph Smith stands up, its a parallel and evidence for Smith's prophethood. If he sat down in front of God I'm sure that would have been a parallel to something else.

Don't sneeze at Bokovoy. He is the up and coming scholar who will eventually replace Peterson and Hamblin. Even if you aren't convinced by his arguments, most LDS appear to be.

Actually you misread what Kevin said.Go to the other thread and see.

Kevin said the article was sloppy and cited Barker as saying asherah is always connected to Yahweh - in agreement with my initial assertion. But you must be right. Maybe I am not reading between the lines where he actually confirms your suspicion about this lowly "accuser."

[Zakuska]

Yes that he did... but then he also showed that YHWH was also connected to El and Elohim, and was a term that slid around. So when YWHW (lord) is connected with Ahserah which YWHW is it... El or his son?

I see you making a post so maybe you'll already answer this.

[Doctor Steuss]

Bokovoy is convinced that Smith's understanding of elohim is proof of divine revelation. The fact that he was learning Hebrew and used his teachers as witnesses to his new discovery, appears to matter nothing at all to him.

But then, we're dealing with a guy who finds a parallel in just about everything. If Joseph Smith stands up, its a parallel and evidence for Smith's prophethood. If he sat down in front of God I'm sure that would have been a parallel to something else.

Don't sneeze at Bokovoy. He is the up and coming scholar who will eventually replace Peterson and Hamblin. Even if you aren't convinced by his arguments, most LDS appear to be.

Don't worry, I won't "sneeze" at Bokovoy. He's much more learned than I am. I think youâ??re being a bit uncharitable towards him and creating a bit of a caricature.

I thought David mostly saw Joseph's theology regarding the Divine Council/Psalm 82/elohim as evidence of his prophethood(?). From what Iâ??ve seen, Davidâ??s research into the Divine Council matches pretty well with current Biblical scholarship on the subject (or at least my understanding of the current scholarship). What further understanding of Joseph's regarding elohim are you referring to? You don't need to explain it for me, just if you could point me in the direction of something David has published.

Also, much of Joseph's theology developed as he studied issues (such as his "translation" of the Bible, and during his studies with his Hebrew mentor). I don't think anyone is contesting this (or are they?)...

[LifeOnaPlate]

Don't worry, I won't "sneeze" at Bokovoy. He's much more learned than I am. I think youâ??re being a bit uncharitable towards him and creating a bit of a caricature.

I thought David mostly saw Joseph's theology regarding the Divine Council/Psalm 82/elohim as evidence of his prophethood(?). From what Iâ??ve seen, Davidâ??s research into the Divine Council matches pretty well with current Biblical scholarship on the subject (or at least my understanding of the current scholarship). What further understanding of Joseph's regarding elohim are you referring to? You don't need to explain it for me, just if you could point me in the direction of something David has published.

Also, much of Joseph's theology developed as he studied issues (such as his "translation" of the Bible, and during his studies with his Hebrew mentor). I don't think anyone is contesting this (or are they?)...

Doctor: according to official Mormon pseudo Doctrine, God revealed every last aspect of the faith ot Joseph Smith during the first vision and Joseph never learned anything new after that. Any mistake or developed doctrine can be written off as false, because we all know, God always gives all his truth all the time to all the people everywhere.

[JasonH]

Yes that he did... but then he also showed that Yaweh was also connected to El and Elohim.

At different times the Israelites believed Yahweh took the role of El, not Elohim. Contrary to Mormonism, elohim is not a name of any deity. Being an elohim is what one is, not who they are. Every God is an elohim, so yes, occasionally El and Yahweh will have a connection with the word just as I have a connection with human.

This is supposed to mitigate the fact that the FARMS article was "sloppy"?

In this context, saying asherah was Elohim's consort instead of Yahweh is as significant as saying George Bush is the President of France, and BMWs are made in Japan.

The two are different. They are different in scholarship, and above all, they are different in Mormonism.

[LifeOnaPlate]

If you think Mormons don't understand the concept of a name-title you are mistaken.

[Zakuska]

Has

At different times the Israelites believed Yahweh took the role of El, not Elohim. Contrary to Mormonism, elohim is not a name of any deity. Being an elohim is what one is, not who they are. Every God is an elohim, so yes, occasionally El and Yahweh will have a connection with the word just as I have a connection with human.

This is supposed to mitigate the fact that the FARMS article was "sloppy"?

In this context, saying asherah was Elohim's consort instead of Yahweh is as significant as saying George Bush is the President of France, and BMWs are made in Japan.

The two are different. They are different in scholarship, and above all, they are different in Mormonism.

I'll move this here...

Yes that he did... but then he also showed that YHWH was also connected to El and Elohim, and was a name/title that slid around. So when YWHW (Lord) is connected with Ahserah which YWHW (Lord) is it... El or his son?

[e=mc2]

Jason H:

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.

Your mere assertion is not evidence against the materials I have on my webpages. But I hardly expect you to engage them. I also stand by the actual evidence instead of merely asserting things as you are comfortable with doing. We shall end up talking past each other. I really gotta get back to my research on Isaiah 53. Thanks though for the brief moment. Best to you.

[JasonH]

Jason H:

Your mere assertion is not evidence against the materials I have on my webpages. But I hardly expect you to engage them. I also stand by the actual evidence instead of merely asserting things as you are comfortable with doing. We shall end up talking past each other. I really gotta get back to my research on Isaiah 53. Thanks though for the brief moment. Best to you.

I see you can't specify where scholarship supports you.

That's because it doesn't.

This is the usual smoke and mirror game where you throw out a page of fluff filled with irrelevant references to scholars who would never appreciate how you're using them to begin with, and then expect me to go digging to refute a negative.

If you have support you would provide.

So let's see if you can.

Show me a scholar who says asherah was the consort of a deity named Elohim.

Just one.

This should be easy given your vast knowledge and the volume of your silly website. Surely you have at least one scholar tucked away in there who would conform. I know Margaret Barker doesn't.

The fact is the LDS doctrine of Elohim -Jehovah - Heavenly Mother has hardly any resemblance to the pre-biblical concept of a family in heaven. El is the high God, not Elohim. Yahweh is the husband of Asherah, not Elohim. These discrepancies cannot be ignored for the sake of apologetics.

[LifeOnaPlate]

I see you can't specify where scholarship supports you.

That's because it doesn't.

*because he hasn't read your stuff, Kerry.

[e=mc2]

Here you are Jaso. Two off the top of my head, and I can find more. Care to engage the evidence?

Biblical scholarship is directly against your mere assertion (yet again!).

Frank Moore Cross, Jr., Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, on page 15, not only does Cross note that El is considered the Father of the GODS (plural here), and Cross notes that "Compare also qaniyatu ilima, "Creatress of the Gods" a formula applied to El's consort Asherah-Elat."

On page 183f, El is acknowledged as the God of the Hebrew Patriarchal God Elohim, and then Cross notes that "Asherah went to the abode of El to wheedle from her aged spouse permission to build Ba'al's royal palace."

You are simply uninformed Jason.

Cross also notes on page 47 that El is the PROPER NAME of the God! El is the basis of Elohim in the Hebrew Bible Jason, and it *is* a proper name for God.

Mark S. Smith, The Origins of Bblical Monotheism, 2000, page 139f says "Outside of proper names, the word el occurs about 230 times in the Hebrew Bible. It usually occurs as an appelative designating a foreign deity as well as Israel's chief deity....It appears as a proper name of the deity in some poetic books such as Psalms (5:5, 7:12, 18:3, 31, 33, 48, 102:25), Job, and Second Isaiah (40:18, 43:12, 45:14, 22, 46:9.

That's two powerhouse BIBLE scholars who soundly disagree with your undocumented assertion that El (hence Elohim) is NOT a proper name. It is, and Joseph Smith was correct to note this.

[JasonH]

This double-post was addressed on the thread.

*because he hasn't read your stuff, Kerry.

Yes I have (regretably). I have also read Barker. And virtually everyone else you will probably throw at me. The difference is I am not "sloppy" as the author of that FARMS article was.

Oh, and I don't have any scholars concerned with the way I use their work.

Kerry cannot say the same.

[SolarPowered]

Frank Moore Cross, Jr...

Yet another uneducated hack being used to back up dubious LDS positions...

[LifeOnaPlate]

This double-post was addressed on the thread.

Yes I have (regretably). I have also read Barker. And virtually everyone else you will probably throw at me. The difference is I am not "sloppy" as the author of that FARMS article was.

Oh, and I don't have any scholars concerned with the way I use their work.

Kerry cannot say the same.

How can he not say the same?

[Ron Beron]

Show me a scholar who says asherah was the consort of a deity named Elohim.

Just one.

I posted Dever assertion in a earlier post and you seemed to just gloss over that.

Dever...""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.'

Now, while it says El the use of Elohim is more augmentative than just a simple El. In the Interpreter's Dictionary it states,

"The conviction that Yahweh is Elohim, God in the absolute sense, is emphasized in the Elohistic (E) narratives of the Pentateuch, so designated because the narrator prefers to use the divine name Elohim, especially for the period before the Mosaic revelation.

The use of Elohim in the priestly creation story, as noted above, is explained not only by the writer's avoidance of the special name Yahweh before the Mosaic period (Exod. 6:2-3), but especially by the attempt to avoid any taint of polytheism, such as was characteristic of ancient mythologies of CREATION. The name Elohim stresses the fact that God, the Creator, is the absolute Lord over his creation and the sovereign of history. Since the priestly scheme articulates history into several dispensations (Creation to Noah, Noah to Abraham, Abraham to Moses), each having its special blessing and commandment, and all leading up to the climactic revelation of Sinai, it is apparent that in Gen. 1:1 Elohim is none other than the God whose personal name, Yahweh, was later disclosed. Thus the priestly redactors of the Pentateuch in Gen. 2:1-3 placed Elohim in apposition to Yahweh in the expression "Yahweh Elohim" ("the LORD God"; e.g., 2:4b, 5, 7), the intention being to affirm that Yahweh is Elohim, the God of all times."

Applied by itself El means little more than our English generic "god". However, when applied with Elohim it becomes, as it states above, "The God", Creator, and absolute Lord.

[JasonH]

Did I really need to specify in Israelite religion?

I figured that was a given since the whole purpose here is to determine what's "biblical" (i.e. Israelite). Biblical scholars do not associate Asherah with a God named Elohim. It is as simple as that.

Do you really want to rely upon Canaanite myth to prove something positive about Mormonism? Did Joseph Smith claim restore lost truths from the ancient Israelites or the Canaanites?

Israel always associated Asherah with Yahweh. El was originally a God in Ugarit and later in Israel, we know this already. But he was also considered a bull (literally!) who had sex with heffer gods to procreate other animal gods. This is the Canaanite El you're referring to here, not the biblical El. The biblical El has a son named Yahweh and a daughter-in-law who is Asherah. This doesn't bode well with Mormonism.

It amazes me how you guys are willing to draw upon virtually anything, so long as it is "ancient." Relevance and context mean nothing. You're even willing to dig into the prehistory once you realize nothing in Israelite religion will support you.

[Ron Beron]

Did I really need to specify in Israelite religion?

I figured that was a given since the whole purpose here is to determine what's "biblical" (i.e. Israelite). Biblical scholars do not associate Asherah with a God named Elohim. It is as simple as that.

Do you really want to rely upon Canaanite myth to prove something positive about Mormonism? Did Joseph Smith claim restore lost truths from the ancient Israelites or the Canaanites?

Israel always associated Asherah with Yahweh. El was originally a God in Ugarit and later in Israel, we know this already. But he was also considered a bull (literally!) who had sex with heffer gods to procreate other animal gods. This is the Canaanite El you're referring to here, not the biblical El. The biblical El has a son named Yahweh and a daughter-in-law who is Asherah. This doesn't bode well with Mormonism.

It amazes me how you guys are willing to draw upon virtually anything, so long as it is "ancient." Relevance and context mean nothing. You're even willing to dig into the prehistory once you realize nothing in Israelite religion will support you.

What am I? Chopped liver? Did you actually read any of the above. The passage from The Interpreter's Dictionary directly specifies Israelite religion as does Dever. As to Canaanite connections Dever more than makes the point to the fact that Israelite religion is derivative of Canaanite beliefs.

[Paul D]

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.

But, the Bible is not the expression of the tongue of man. It's the out-breathing of the person of God, that God moved men to record in print (2 Pet. 1:20-21).

[e=mc2]

Jason H:

Do you really want to rely upon Canaanite myth to prove something positive about Mormonism? Did Joseph Smith claim restore lost truths from the ancient Israelites or the Canaanites?

Hi Kevin Graham.

I assume you are unaware of how the ancient Israelites adapted a whole whopping lot of Canaanite religion for their own exegesis? Psalm 29 (biblical ya know), and all that. The Bible adapted a lot of their neighbors informations as their own, so it may very well have originated with Canaan, but used by Israelites.

[JasonH]

What am I? Chopped liver? Did you actually read any of the above. The passage from The Interpreter's Dictionary directly specifies Israelite religion as does Dever.

But the two are saying two different things. You're all over the place. The outdated dictionary is a theological defense in light of the Documentary Hypothesis. Dever explicitly refers to asherah as she was understood in Canaanite myth.

As to Canaanite connections Dever more than makes the point to the fact that Israelite religion is derivative of Canaanite beliefs.

Which parts and to what extent? You don't specify and do not seem to think it important.

It isn't enough to say Israel borrowed from their Canaanite neighbors (everyone knows this), therefore we can pull anything we want from Canaanite myth and assume the Israelites believed it too. This is essentially what you are doing. There is a reason Dever and Cross explicitly refer to Canaanite belief: there is no evidence this was the belief in Ancient Israel. Yes, there are numerous similarities because Israel borrowed ideas and concepts, but none that indicate Israel ever believed Asherah was a consort to anyone other than Yahweh. You guys have not been able to jump that hurdle yet.

Good grief people. Your own initial source made it perfectly clear. Asherah is always associated with Yahweh in the Bible. Digging up Akkadian experts and performing surgery on folklore from Ugarit to dissect irrelevant citations is going back too far to have any apologetic significance anyway. Mormonism doesn't claim to be a restoration of lost and forgotten Ugaritic beliefs.

[JasonH]

I assume you are unaware of how the ancient Israelites adapted a whole whopping lot of Canaanite religion for their own exegesis? Psalm 29 (biblical ya know), and all that. The Bible adapted a lot of their neighbors informations as their own, so it may very well have originated with Canaan, but used by Israelites.

What was?

I am fully aware of the fact that there are obvious similarities and the Israelites unquestionably borrowed from their polytheistic neighbors. But as I explained to ace, this doesn't give us license to immediately assume everything in Canaanite myth was accepted in Israel. No scholar agrees with this method because it is sloppy and careless. And it is precisely why people like Mark Smith are not pleased with the manner in which you use their work.

You have no basis for your argument using evidence from ancient Israel, so you are left with the only option of digging deeper into the past and then pretending the evidence from Ugarit should be considered Israelite by default. What you fail to address are the differences between the two. There is a reason Israelite religion was different from Canaanite religion. The two were similar but not exactly alike. Plenty of significant changes were made with the Israelites, like the idea of Asherah being the consort of Yahweh. She was never the consort of a deity named Elohim. Period. End of story.

Just because she was consort to a similarly named God in ancient Ugarit, doesn't mean we can make that apologetic leap and assume the Israelites believed likewise; especially since every biblical reference to asherah as consort associates her with Yahweh, and never with El or elohim.

But hey, its just the Bible. According to LDS it is corrupt as all get out. Surely we can find more truth in Ancient Ugarit...

Keep fishing guys.

[Ron Beron]

JasonH writes,

But the two are saying two different things. You're all over the place. The outdated dictionary is a theological defense in light of the Documentary Hypothesis. Dever explicitly refers to asherah as she was understood in Canaanite myth.

It is hardly out of date when the Anchor Dictionary states essentially the same thing.

There is a reason Dever and Cross explicitly refer to Canaanite belief: there is no evidence this was the belief in Ancient Israel. Yes, there are numerous similarities because Israel borrowed ideas and concepts, but none that indicate Israel ever believed Asherah was a consort to anyone other than Yahweh. You guys have not been able to jump that hurdle yet.

The hurdle has been jumped. You simply have refused to accept it which is good and well. As to Dever I somewhat wonder if you have actually read his book (I'll assume you have) because from page 209 onward he states how the cult of Asherah effected Israel.

Good grief people. Your own initial source made it perfectly clear. Asherah is always associated with Yahweh in the Bible. Digging up Akkadian experts and performing surgery on folklore from Ugarit to dissect irrelevant citations is going back too far to have any apologetic significance anyway. Mormonism doesn't claim to be a restoration of lost and forgotten Ugaritic beliefs.

I don't think anyone is arguing that Asherah is NOT always associated with Yahweh in the Israelite sense, but it is just that the term Yahweh and El/Elohim were used interchangeably. As to Mormon theology this whole thing is purely speculative and has very little to do with modern LDS beliefs aside from being curious.

[Sargon]

Biblical Scholarship has proved that Jesus' formal name was never actually CHRIST. It was a title taken from Jewish mythology, and applied to Jesus as a name-title. I guess Christianity as a whole is simply false since 95% of all Christians don't know that, and assume his last name is Christ.

Sargon

[Sargon]

Yes, there are numerous similarities because Israel borrowed ideas and concepts, but none that indicate Israel ever believed Asherah was a consort to anyone other than Yahweh.

Actually, according to Dever there are still many many scholars who do not believe that Asherah was viewed as a consort to Yahweh by Israelites, but rather as a hypostatized feminine side of Yahweh.