Sexuality And The Biblical God

[David Bokovoy]

But the Bible does suppress anthropomorphisms. No scholar worth his salt would say otherwise - even if you do.

We will simply have to agree to disagree.

While certain biblical texts suppress anthropomorphisms, most biblical authors (including as illustrated the J source and Deutero-Isaiah) rely heavily upon the trend. It is wrong, therefore to suggest that the Bible suppresses anthropomorphisms.

It does not. And from my perspective, no scholar worth his salt would say otherwise.

When the Bible says God has a form, and then later on says God has no form, it is effectively suppressing its own anthropomorphism.

Simply because some biblical authors suppress anthropomorphism does not mean that the Bible itself does, particularly when so many of its authors depict deity in humanlike terms.

I already provided several scholarly citations to this effect, but here is another from Smithâ??s Origins of Biblical Monotheism, referring to the diminished anthropomorphism in earliest Israelite religion, when compared to Ugarit: â??The West Semitic literary tradition was quite anthropomorphic, and the Israelite literary tradition reduced this anthropomorphism to some extent.â? p.176

Clearly reduction to some extent does not equal suppression.

Well, nobody ever said anthropomorphisms were obliterated. Terms like â??suppressedâ?, â??mutedâ? and â??toned downâ? are generally used. Again, I merely quoted Margaret Barker on this. If you still think she is in need of "correction," then I have her email address.

No thanks. Iâ??ve no desire to contact her.

Do you think that you have illustrated this? You have argued this, but I wouldnâ??t go any further than that. You rely too heavily on extra-biblical texts and then use them any way you can as an interpretive template to read the biblical text to conform to unique Mormon themes.

Actually, any biblical scholar worth his salt will rely heavily upon extra-biblical Near Eastern texts to interpret the historical and religious background that influenced biblical authors. This is why Akkadian, Phoenician, Moabite, Ugaritic, etc. are a mandatory addition to any serious Bible program worth its salt.

As a scholar trained in Bible and the Ancient Near East, that's simply what I do.

The difference between your presentations and that of other scholars with experience, in my opinion, is the humble factor.

Indeed, my arrogance is truly legendary.

I donâ??t see scholars like Gerhard von Rad and Mark Smith argue with the utmost confidence that they have proved their point. They are far more cautious in presenting them as suggestions, submissions, theories, possibilities, etc. Maybe it is because they are older, I donâ??t know.

I have confidence in the accuracy of my suggestions. Until you or anyone else can illustrate a problem with the logic Iâ??ve employed, Iâ??ll retain that confidence, no matter how old I am.

You could surely take some lessons in your academic mannerism from Dan Peterson. He is about as cautious a scholar as one could ask for.

Dan is truly a scholar and a gentleman.

You frequently refer to your presentations as factual, long before anyone has been able to test them. I donâ??t know any scholars who approach the issues this way, but I know a lot of online polemicists who do. You're reminding me of JP Holding.

And I'm curious, exactly how many scholars do you know?

Anyway, just a word of caution; do with it what you will.

As usual, thanks for both the free professional and personal advice.

Yes. And I believe that Evangelicals are equally in error by claiming divine incorporeality is â??biblical.â? It isnâ??t that there arenâ??t enough verses to argue divine incoporeality, itâ??s just that the Bible is a big book with a lot of different theological ideas.

And as a â??big book with a lot of different theological ideas,â? it would be incorrect to state (as you do) that the Bible suppresses anthropomorphisms and that the biblical God is not a sexual being.

[grego]

David,

While you often give intriguing and strong evidence, there are times that I don't think it works.

IMO I think you often take the myths and stories a little too far over onto "reality".

One example is Genesis 6. How do angels (curious, how did you come up with "gods" here?) have sex with mortals? They had bodies, or didn't? (No resurrection yet; translated?) Under God and having to do with this world, or not? Truly from heaven, or just figuratively in a certain way of deception, or not? They did it without God knowing, then he found out.(??) Too much doesn't add up for me, sorry...

I liked the "leave his father and mother" part, too.

[David Bokovoy]

Hello Grego,

While you often give intriguing and strong evidence, there are times that I don't think it works.

Fair enough. No worries. Feel free to disagree.

IMO I think you often take the myths and stories a little too far over onto "reality".

Iâ??m not sure what this means. I do not believe that biblical myths like the story of the gods having sexual relations with mortal women in Genesis 6 reflect reality.

Itâ??s an Israelite folktale presented in the Bible.

I donâ??t believe that the event really happened.

When interpreted in its proper historical and religious connotation, however, the account suggests that the biblical author believed that the gods of the divine council were sexual beings and that humanity and the gods belonged to a related species.

One example is Genesis 6. How do angels (curious, how did you come up with "gods" here?) have sex with mortals? They had bodies, or didn't? (No resurrection yet; translated?) Under God and having to do with this world, or not? Truly from heaven, or just figuratively in a certain way of deception, or not? They did it without God knowing, then he found out.(??) Too much doesn't add up for me, sorry...

Again, it's certainly alright if my understanding doesn't add up for you. I recognize that my approach to these stories is no doubt a bit different than what you are used to.

Genesis 6 does not mention angels (in fact the term angel does not refer to a separate species of divine beings in the Old Testament as it does in contemporary western tradition).

The story refers to a group identified as the Sons of God. Most Biblicists (myself included) recognize this myth as a reference to the gods of the divine council.

If you would like a bit more background on the way I interpret this story you may wish to consider the following essay:

http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/pdf.php?fi...p;type=cmV2aWV3

[David Bokovoy]

Glad to be of service.

My feeling is that the deuteronomists threw out the baby with the bath water when they set out to expunge Asherah from the religious public consciousness. In the process, they deprived God of his masculinity, and of his familial ties -- both to his actual immediate family and to the human race.

Of course, this is consistent with apostasy from the true gospel in every age. What was Abinadi condemned for? For claiming that God would become a man -- a related concept. And, the concept that God and men are essentially the same species was the target of the later Christian reformers. It would seem that the enemy of true doctrine always rests his sights on this particular concept when he sets out to destroy the church.

It is therefore no surprise to me that LDS "reformers" would also be inclined to expunge these same concepts from the doctrine of the restored gospel.

Nice insights Will.

[Sargon]

I think we have all been guilty of claiming that a certain point of doctrine is the "biblical" view, and therefore anything to the contrary of that doctrine is "unbiblical". Evangelicals are in my opinion the most guilty in this respect, quoting Isaiah 43-45 and claiming that monotheism is the "biblical" doctrine, while ignoring the many many verses that teach the contrary.

What do you think of the oft-mentioned trees associated with Abraham's worship at pre-Israelite shrines in Cannan? Do they suggest that Abraham embraced the iconography of Asherah?

Sargon

[LifeOnaPlate]

I'd like to thank JasonH aka Kevin, because this stuff was great!

[charity]

May I ask a question? Is staying silent on a subject "suppression?"