Exaltation And Isaiah 43:10

[kolipoki09]

Not long ago while serving as a missionary in the Texas Fort Worth Mission, I met a man who at the time, was finishing his schooling at a local theological seminary in Dallas. As part of his studies, he was required to write a thesis on various faiths. He chose however, to focus his time, effort, and hatred, toward the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It was obvious in our hour long meeting with him that he had a contempt toward the LDS faith. Knowing that he also taught a Christian Apologetics class at the local mega-church "Denton Bible" made the situation even more interesting.

As we reasoned together various topics arose, Fundamentalism, Blood Atonement, and Adam-God our efforts to focus on the message of the Restoration were blatantly ignored. After about twenty minutes of him telling us "what we believe" he brought up the King Follet discourse, one of the most misunderstood and misquoted of all LDS literature in Anti-Mormonism. Those familiar with the sermon in light of gospel truths can see the valuable insights brought forth by the Prophet Joseph. He show's us "from the Bible" how we can become gods ourselves.

The doctrines of Eternal Life and Exaltation as taught by Joseph Smith and his successors has been the focus of much ridicule and criticism from those opposed to the LDS church. It is even more frustrating when our critics use scripture to oppose these restored doctrines. In an effort to "nail the coffin shut" on myself and my companion regarding how "God became God, and ourselves becoming like Him" our critic pointed out this passage in Isaiah 43:10

"Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me was no God formed, neither shall there be after me."

My testimony was not shaken, nor was his hatred for the LDS church stemmed, however I've always tinkered with different ideas if how the teachings of the Prophets be harmonized with what for me seems to be somewhat of a stumbling block in theology. I am open to any ideas and explanations as to this scripture and its relation to LDS teachings from individuals enlightened by the Spirit. Thanks always,

Kolipoki

[jwhitlock]

Context is everything in this case.

And the OT must be read in the context of what the Israelites were dealing with, since it is written to them and for them.

One of the things the Israelites had the most trouble with was idolatry, running after the worship of false gods. The Lord spent quite a bit of time trying to explain to them that He was the only God they were to worship - not the others.

Our exaltation as gods, true sons and daughters of God, is another context entirely. Anti-Mormons really want their audience to assume that when we talk about gods, we are also automatically talking about their worship. This is a false assumption, and one that we as LDS spend quite a bit of time trying to combat in order to give the proper perspective.

Quotes concerning the worship of one God in the OT are literal in their meaning. They have no reference to exaltation; they deal with the question of idolatry.

It is interesting to note that the NT is quite a bit more open with the doctrine of becoming like God - something that mainstream Christianity has trouble addressing effectively.

[Sargon]

Not long ago while serving as a missionary in the Texas Fort Worth Mission, I met a man who at the time, was finishing his schooling at a local theological seminary in Dallas. As part of his studies, he was required to write a thesis on various faiths. He chose however, to focus his time, effort, and hatred, toward the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It was obvious in our hour long meeting with him that he had a contempt toward the LDS faith. Knowing that he also taught a Christian Apologetics class at the local mega-church "Denton Bible" made the situation even more interesting.

As we reasoned together various topics arose, Fundamentalism, Blood Atonement, and Adam-God our efforts to focus on the message of the Restoration were blatantly ignored. After about twenty minutes of him telling us "what we believe" he brought up the King Follet discourse, one of the most misunderstood and misquoted of all LDS literature in Anti-Mormonism. Those familiar with the sermon in light of gospel truths can see the valuable insights brought forth by the Prophet Joseph. He show's us "from the Bible" how we can become gods ourselves.

The doctrines of Eternal Life and Exaltation as taught by Joseph Smith and his successors has been the focus of much ridicule and criticism from those opposed to the LDS church. It is even more frustrating when our critics use scripture to oppose these restored doctrines. In an effort to "nail the coffin shut" on myself and my companion regarding how "God became God, and ourselves becoming like Him" our critic pointed out this passage in Isaiah 43:10

"Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me was no God formed, neither shall there be after me."

My testimony was not shaken, nor was his hatred for the LDS church stemmed, however I've always tinkered with different ideas if how the teachings of the Prophets be harmonized with what for me seems to be somewhat of a stumbling block in theology. I am open to any ideas and explanations as to this scripture and its relation to LDS teachings from individuals enlightened by the Spirit. Thanks always,

Kolipoki

Be sure to read this whole article and check out some of the links found at the very bottom.

Whether this passage is referring to false idols who represent deities that do not exist, or whether it refers to real divine beings who exist alongside and subordinate to Yahweh is not crucial for responding to this particular criticism. The passage specifically says "before" and "after" Yahweh. Since Yahweh has always existed, and since He will always exist no man can ever be exalted "before" or "after" Yahweh. All men who are exalted to godhood will be contemporaries of Yahweh, and will never precede nor follow Yahweh's existence. They will also become part of the divine council over which he presides.

http://en.fairmormon.org/%22No_God_beside_me%22

I lived in Keller, right next to Denton!

[bjw]

Even if we do apply this verse to us, it is written from our vantage point. We will never have any other God than our God. So, while I was an EV investigating Mormonism, this never really gave me much trouble. However, I still come across an EV that slaps me with this every now and then.

Also, to say that God cannot make us gods is limiting the power of God. The scriptures make it clear we are to become "joint heirs" with Christ, who has the maximum of exaltation being seated at the right hand of the Father. Also, from the prayer of Christ in John 17 it sounds as if we are "given" to Christ by the Father, so this is apparently part of Christ's exaltation. So, if we interpret the Isaiah passage from an EV point of view, it doesn't make sense in the light of the rest of the Bible.

Just curious, anyone know if "Elohim" is the word for God used in the Isaiah passage, or is it something else?

[jwhitlock]

Also, to say that God cannot make us gods is limiting the power of God.

This is a great point, especially since God is supposed to be Omnipotent. It's also a great point when considered in light of Luke 6:40.

[BCSpace]

As we reasoned together various topics arose, Fundamentalism, Blood Atonement, and Adam-God our efforts to focus on the message of the Restoration were blatantly ignored.

That's because he knows the Bible does not support any nonLDS christian pov. From his pov, it is critical to the debate that he avoid talking about it.

It is even more frustrating when our critics use scripture to oppose these restored doctrines. In an effort to "nail the coffin shut" on myself and my companion regarding how "God became God, and ourselves becoming like Him" our critic pointed out this passage in Isaiah 43:10

"Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me was no God formed, neither shall there be after me."

Here is the short answer. The OT Jews did not know or were not introduced to the Father. All they knew was Jehovah, who is Christ (easy to prove). The context of the whole Isaiah 40-45 set (there are some other similar verses therein) is that Jehovah was the only God created for those particular people to worship.

Now, complete the turning of the tables and ask why Jesus (who is Jehovah) says he has a God (John 20:17).

Checkmate!

Any critic worth his salt will then try to obfuscate with something about context that is non sequitur, but that's how you know you've won. The subject got changed.

[ebeddoulos]

Allow me to lay a foundation that there is a difference between "idols" and "gods". Psalms 97:7 distinguishes between man-made â??graven imagesâ? and gods who are capable of worshipping. So ask yourself, who are the gods supposed to worship?

â??Confounded be all they that serve graven images, that boast themselves of idols: worship him, all ye gods.â?(Psalms 97:7)
"All who worship images are put to shame, those who boast in idols-- worship him, all you gods!â?(Psalms 97:7-NIV)

The natural question follows, â??Is God to be worshiped by a congregation of nonexistent beings?â? Most Latter-day Sains would answer in the negative.

The Bible also answers the question as to which God are we to give our thanks. (Psalms 136:2)

â??O give thanks unto the God of gods: for his mercy endureth for ever.â? (Psalms 136:2)
"Give thanks to the God of gods. His love endures for ever."(Psalms 136:2-NIV)

With that foundation laid, if we truly know this God of gods, we should understand that he has no interest in being worshipped by false gods made (e.g., â??formedâ?) by manâ??s hands or idols. Isaiah 43:10 is a verse that is talking about idols and false gods.

"Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.â? (Isaiah 43:10)
"You are my witnesses, declares the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me." (Isaiah 43:10-NIV)

Just a side note: formed = Hebrew â??yatsorâ? = sculpt, construct, fashion, frame, form (Strongâ??s 3335) (James Strong, â??Strongâ??s Dictionary of the Hebrew Testamentâ?, Nashville: Crusade Bible Publishers, Inc., [no date], pg. 51) The God we worship is real, not some construct of man.

On a somewhat related proof text often used by the anti-Mormons: â??beside meâ? is a Hebrew aphorism used to convey peer relationship or equality. Zephaniah 2:15 contains the same wording as found in Isaiah 45:21, etc.

â??This is the rejoicing city that dwelt carelessly, that said in her heart, I am, and there is none beside me: how is she become a desolation, a place for beasts to lie down in! every one that passeth by her shall hiss, and wag his hand.â? (Zephaniah 2:15)
"This is the carefree city that lived in safety. She said to herself, I am, and there is none besides me. What a ruin she has become, a lair for wild beasts! All who pass by her scoff and shake their fists." (Zephaniah 2:15-NIV)

God is without equal. All the other lesser gods know and understand this which explains why they, like us worship the one true God of gods.

[helix]

Michael Heiser talks about it on his site. He has one paper which talks about it for 3 pages. But I did find this which summarizes a bit of what he discusses elsewhere. See page 15 at http://www.thedivinecouncil.com/MonotheismProblem.pdf

Finally, Hebrew syntax aside, if one goes back and reads the denial statements in Deutero-Isaiah it is not difficult to discern upon what basis the denial language occurs. Is the language concerned with making the point that Yahweh is the only god who exists or something else? In Isa 43:10-12 it is Yahwehâ??s claim to be alone in his pre-existence, ability to save, and national deliverance. In Isa. 44:6-8 the focus is on certain attributes of Yahweh. In the texts from Isaiah 45, there are very obvious comparisons between Yahwehâ??s deeds, justice, salvation, and deliverance of his children and the impotence of the other gods. All these passages are transparently concerned with comparing Yahweh to other godsâ??not comparing Yahweh to beings that do not exist. That would be empty praise indeed.

[David Waltz]

Hi JW,

You posted:

>> Context is everything in this case.

And the OT must be read in the context of what the Israelites were dealing with, since it is written to them and for them.

One of the things the Israelites had the most trouble with was idolatry, running after the worship of false gods. The Lord spent quite a bit of time trying to explain to them that He was the only God they were to worship - not the others.

Our exaltation as gods, true sons and daughters of God, is another context entirely. Anti-Mormons really want their audience to assume that when we talk about gods, we are also automatically talking about their worship. This is a false assumption, and one that we as LDS spend quite a bit of time trying to combat in order to give the proper perspective.

Quotes concerning the worship of one God in the OT are literal in their meaning. They have no reference to exaltation; they deal with the question of idolatry.>>

Me: Amen.

>>It is interesting to note that the NT is quite a bit more open with the doctrine of becoming like God - something that mainstream Christianity has trouble addressing effectively.>>

Me: Only if you define â??mainstream Christianityâ? as Evangelical Christianity. Catholic Christians have addressed, and continue to address â??the doctrine of becoming like Godâ? quite â??effectivelyâ?.

Grace and peace,

David

[Maidservant]

Context is everything in this case.

And the OT must be read in the context of what the Israelites were dealing with, since it is written to them and for them.

One of the things the Israelites had the most trouble with was idolatry, running after the worship of false gods. The Lord spent quite a bit of time trying to explain to them that He was the only God they were to worship - not the others.

Our exaltation as gods, true sons and daughters of God, is another context entirely. Anti-Mormons really want their audience to assume that when we talk about gods, we are also automatically talking about their worship. This is a false assumption, and one that we as LDS spend quite a bit of time trying to combat in order to give the proper perspective.

Quotes concerning the worship of one God in the OT are literal in their meaning. They have no reference to exaltation; they deal with the question of idolatry.

It is interesting to note that the NT is quite a bit more open with the doctrine of becoming like God - something that mainstream Christianity has trouble addressing effectively.

Very good.

A couple of general points.

One, not all scripture can be read the same. That is, D & C 20, for example, is a very pragmatical what to do. Most other scriptures are something else entirely. Isaiah (and many other types of scriptures) is not a oujia board of phrases that when pointed to give a "color within the lines" type of doctrinal information. As we know, Isaiah is poetry first and foremost.

Two, jwhitlock stated my thoughts better than I could have. Also, one slight twist or corrollary from the point of view of the modern age could be that the God we follow now cannot be separated from the God in ages past. That from Adam forward there has only been One who has delivered.

[ebeddoulos]

Just curious, anyone know if "Elohim" is the word for God used in the Isaiah passage, or is it something else?

This is the passage in question from the King James version with the Strong's numbers for looking up the original Hebrew word in his dictionary.

"YeH859 are my witnesses,H5707 saithH5002 the LORD,H3068 and my servantH5650 whomH834 I have chosen:H977 thatH4616 ye may knowH3045 and believeH539 me, and understandH995 thatH3588 IH589 am he:H1931 beforeH6440 me there was noH3808 GodH410 formed,H3335 neitherH3808 shall there beH1961 afterH310 me.(Isaiah 43:10)

These are the relevant citations from Strong's

H3068
יהוה
yehôvâh
yeh-ho-vaw'
From H1961; (the) self Existent or eternal; Jehovah, Jewish national name of God: - Jehovah, the Lord. Compare H3050, H3069." (James Strong, â??Strongâ??s Dictionary of the Hebrew Testamentâ?, Nashville: Crusade Bible Publishers, Inc., [no date], pg. 47)

H410
אל
'êl
ale
Shortened from H352; strength; as adjective mighty; especially the Almighty (but used also of any deity): - God (god), X goodly, X great, idol, might (-y one), power, strong. Compare names in â??-el.â? (James Strong, â??Strongâ??s Dictionary of the Hebrew Testamentâ?, Nashville: Crusade Bible Publishers, Inc., [no date], pg. 12)

I hope this helps.

[jwhitlock]

Me: Only if you define "mainstream Christianity" as Evangelical Christianity. Catholic Christians have addressed, and continue to address "the doctrine of becoming like God" quite "effectively".

Given the schizophrenic attitude many EVs seem to have towards Catholics, and the possessive exclusivity with which they, and fundamentalists, seem to exhibit about Christianity, your point is well taken.

I find that context sometimes tends to limit the scope of application for scriptural pronouncements, as demonstrated by this OP. This also applies to the NT, for instance in the case of pronouncements concerning works within the context of the Law of Moses. But that's a discussion for another thread.

[Kevin Christensen]

Regarding Isaiah 43:10. contextualizing a text is always more fruitful than prooftexting with a text. Here is a look at how I contextualize this passage:

http://www.farms.byu.edu/publications/pape...6&chapid=53

Redoing the essay now, I would also refer to Margaret's essay on The Original Context of the Fourth Servant Song, which can be found in her papers at www.margaretbarker.com

Kevin Christensen

Pittsburgh, PA

[Zakuska]

Now, complete the turning of the tables and ask why Jesus (who is Jehovah) says he has a God (John 20:17).

Or why Jesus (who is Jehovah) calls other divine beings 'gods' and the scriptures can't be broken. (John 10:34-37)

[Doctor Steuss]

My takes on the passage (as meeger as they are) can be found here and here.

[...]

Me: Only if you define â??mainstream Christianityâ? as Evangelical Christianity. Catholic Christians have addressed, and continue to address â??the doctrine of becoming like Godâ? quite â??effectivelyâ?.

Grace and peace,

David

And some of us are eagerly awaiting the publication of an upcoming book by one of those Catholic Christians (I hope progress is coming along nicely).

-Stuart

[LifeOnaPlate]

I like that one.

[Tanyan]

From my undrstanding the Hebrew phraseology used in that [and other passages] denotes the exclusivity of a sweetheart [ You are the only one for me ] not denying the existence of others. I could/may be wrong on this .

In His Debt/Grace, Tanyan LDS JEDI KNIGHT.

[ebeddoulos]

I like that one.

I'm glad you do. That is why I make 'em.

[Thinking]

Isaiah 43:10

"Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me was no God formed, neither shall there be after me."

I can see both sides of the argument. The LDS side reminds me of a scene from Hoosiers.

"What I say, when it comes to this basketball team, is the law -- absolutely and without discussion." (Coach Norman Dale)

[Billy]

Or why Jesus (who is Jehovah) calls other divine beings 'gods' and the scriptures can't be broken. (John 10:34-37)

James Talmage Jesus the Christ Chapter 28 answers the Ye are Gods question the best.

"Plainly they had found no ambiguity in His words. He then cited to them the scriptures, wherein even judges empowered by divine authority are called gods, and asked: "Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken: say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?" Then, reverting to the first avouchment that His own commission was of the Father who is greater than all, He added: "If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him." Again the Jews sought to take Him, but were foiled by means not stated; He passed from their reach and departed from the temple."

Actually I think a better verse for one God is in the next chapter of Isaiah, where God say he does not even know of any other God.

Isaiah 44

6Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.

8Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any.

[ebeddoulos]

James Talmage Jesus the Christ Chapter 28 answers the Ye are Gods question the best.

"Plainly they had found no ambiguity in His words. He then cited to them the scriptures, wherein even judges empowered by divine authority are called gods, and asked: "Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken: say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?" Then, reverting to the first avouchment that His own commission was of the Father who is greater than all, He added: "If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him." Again the Jews sought to take Him, but were foiled by means not stated; He passed from their reach and departed from the temple."

Actually I think a better verse for one God is in the next chapter of Isaiah, where God say he does not even know of any other God.

Isaiah 44

6Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.

8Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any.

Some individuals, such as yourself, who are woefully uninformed of the doctrine of Christâ??s restored church try to imply that there is a disagreement among Latter-day Saints in General and among General Authorities in particular on interpretation of Psalm 82:6. Elder Talmageâ??s take on this scriptural passage is not dissimilar from Elder McConkieâ??s and others. His belief in the divine nature of man is the same: There is no doctrinal disagreement. Elder Talmage simply confirms the divine judgeship spoken of by Paul. Those saints who truly follow Christ and endure to the end shall be gods and shall judge the world. The following represent but a small part of the writings of Church authorities regarding the use by Jesus Christ of Psalms 82:6 in John 10:32-39.

â??Divinely Appointed Judges Called â??Gods.â? â?? In Psalm 82:6, judges invested by divine appointment are called â??gods.â? To this scripture the Savior referred in His reply to the Jews in Solomonâ??s Porch. Judges so authorized officiated as the representatives of God and are honored by the exalted title â??gods.â? Compare the similar appellation applied to Moses (Ex. 4:16; 7:1). Jesus Christ possessed divine authorization, not through the word of God transmitted to Him by man, but as an inherent attribute. The inconsistency of calling human judges â??gods,â? and of ascribing blasphemy to the Christ who called Himself the Son of God, would have been apparent to the Jews but for their sin-darkened minds.â? (James E. Talmage, â??Jesus the Christâ?, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., [1969], pg. 501)

â??But 'Mormonism' is bolder yet. It asserts that in accordance with the inviolable law of organic natureâ??that like shall beget like, and that multiplication of numbers and perpetuation of species shall be in compliance with the condition 'each after his kind,' the child may achieve the former status of the parent, and that in his mortal condition man is a God in embryo. However far in the future it may be, what ages may elapse, what eternities may pass before any individual now a mortal being may attain the rank and sanctity of godship, nevertheless man carries in his soul the possibilities of such achievement; even as the crawling caterpillar or the corpse-like chrysalis holds the latent possibility, nay, barring destruction in an earlier stage, the certainty indeed, of the winged imago in all the glory of maturity.â? (James E. Talmage, â??Articles of Faithâ?, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., [1968], pg. 474)

â??But to us there is but one God, who is Elohim, and one Lord, who is the Lord Jehovah; the Holy Ghost acts as their minister; and these three are one Godhead, or as it is more graphically expressed, one God. Thus we find the Psalmist, whom Jesus quoted, saying: â??God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods. . . . I have said, ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.â? (Psalms 82:1, 6)
This, then, in effect, is our Lordâ??s argument: â??Why accuse me of blasphemy for testifying that I was sanctified and sent into the world by the Father? Does it offend you to hear me say that I am the Son of God? Do you not know that every righteous person to whom the word of God comes, and who then obeys the fulness of that law, shall become like the Father and be a god himself?â??â?? (Bruce R. McConkie, â??Doctrinal New Testament Commentaryâ?, Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, [1965-1973], Vol.1 of 3: 491)

â??From such testimony we conclude that the God of the ancients was a personal being who thought it not beneath his dignity to appear to his prophets and instruct them face to face. He had body, parts, and passions. He had gender, speech, and family, of which he claimed us to be a part. In textual restorations given us through the Prophet Joseph Smith, we learn that God is an exalted, glorified, resurrected man. We are told that we are his children, created in the image and likeness of his body (Moses 6:9). We neither quibble nor hedge the words of the psalmist, who said: â??and all of you are children of the most Highâ? (Psalm 82:6). We accept Christâ??s affirmation of the literal rendering of those words (John 10:34-36).â? (Joseph Fielding McConkie, â??Here We Standâ?, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., [1995], pg. 166-167)

â??When Jesus was preaching unto the Jews on one occasion they atoned Him, and He wanted to know if they stoned Him for the good works He had been doing. Oh, no, they say, â??for a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.â? To meet this, Jesus said:
â??Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
â??If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scriptures cannot be broken;
â??Say Ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?â?
We believe that there are gods, as the Savior quoted. He repeated what was written in the law, and He did not say it was wrong, but used it as an argument against them. While, however, we believe, as the scripture states, that there are more gods, to us there is but one God. We worship the God that created the heavens and the earth. We worship the same God that came to our first parents in the Garden of Eden.â? (President Anthon H. Lund, Conference Report, October 1902, Afternoon Session)

As for your proof text of Isaiah 44:6&8, it does not hold up to examination. â??Beside meâ? is a Hebrew aphorism used to convey peer relationship or equality. For example Zephaniah 2:15 contains the same wording as found in Isaiah 44:6 45:21, etc..

â??This is the rejoicing city that dwelt carelessly, that said in her heart, I am, and there is none beside me: how is she become a desolation, a place for beasts to lie down in! every one that passeth by her shall hiss, and wag his hand.â? (Zephaniah 2:15)

The city was saying it had no peer, no equal. God, also, is without peer or equal.

In Isaiah 44:8, the second god is translated from the Hebrew Tsuwr {tsoor} which means cliff, sharp rock or boulder. Of the 79 occurances of tsuwr only two are translated as god: Isaiah 44:8 and Habakuk 1:12. A literal translation might read: â??â?¦ Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no rock; I know not any. (Isaiah 44:

H6697 צר צוּר tsûr tsûr tsoor, tsoor From H6696; properly a cliff (or sharp rock, as compressed); generally a rock or boulder; figuratively a refuge; also an edge (as precipitous): - edge, X (mighty) God (one), rock, X sharp, stone, X strength, X strong. See also H1049. (James Strong, â??Strongâ??s Dictionary of the Hebrew Testamentâ?, Nashville: Crusade Bible Publishers, Inc., [no date], pg. 99)

Isaiah was making a joke wiith about efficacy of idols made of stone to be worshiped as deity. Obviously you have not made a thorough enough study of the subject to appreciate the humor. May I suggest that you rectify that situation?

[Billy]

A literal translation might read: â??â?¦ Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no rock; I know not any.

So the question is "Is there a God beside me?"

And God answers "yea, there is no rock; I know not any."

You say this means, "Isaiah was making a joke wiith about efficacy of idols made of stone to be worshiped as deity." I guess you are right, I don't get the joke. Does anybody else share your view on the meaning of this verse?

If you are saying that rock means a false God then the sentence reads

And God answers "yea, there in no false God; I know not any."

If God is talking about false Gods in this sentence then he is not being honest, because there are many false Gods and I am sure God knows about them.

Hebrew for H6697

masculine noun

proper noun with reference to deity

1) rock, cliff

a) rocky wall, cliff

b. rock (with flat surface)

c) block of stone, boulder

d) rock (specific)

e) rock (of God)

f) rock (of heathen gods)

A couple of other verses that show rock, not referring to a false God (6697)

Psa 89:26 He shall cry unto me, Thou [art] my father, my God, and the rock of my salvation.

Psa 92:15 To shew that the LORD [is] upright: [he is] my rock, and [there is] no unrighteousness in him.

[Billy]

Psalm 82:6. Elder Talmageâ??s take on this scriptural passage is not dissimilar from Elder McConkieâ??s and others. His belief in the divine nature of man is the same: There is no doctrinal disagreement. Elder Talmage simply confirms the divine judgeship spoken of by Paul. Those saints who truly follow Christ and endure to the end shall be gods and shall judge the world.

I agree with you that the saints will be judges as noted in the verse below

1 Corinthians 6:2-3

2Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if you are to judge the world, are you not competent to judge trivial cases? 3Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more the things of this life!

But it makes no mention of being a god and judging the world in these verses.

When you look at Psalms 82:6, you need to also look at verse 7 which indicates that these were unrighteous judges, not great candidates to become a god someday.

Psalms 82:6-7

6 "I said, 'You are "gods";

you are all sons of the Most High.'

7 But you will die like mere men;

you will fall like every other ruler."

[BCSpace]

Now, complete the turning of the tables and ask why Jesus (who is Jehovah) says he has a God (John 20:17).

Or why Jesus (who is Jehovah) calls other divine beings 'gods' and the scriptures can't be broken. (John 10:34-37)

Amen.

John 10:34-36 answers the Ps 82:6 gods question absolutely as divine gods and not human judges. Simply substitute "human judges" into John 10 and ask yourself "Where is the blasphemy?"

[Billy]

Amen.

John 10:34-36 answers the Ps 82:6 gods question absolutely as divine gods and not human judges. Simply substitute "human judges" into John 10 and ask yourself "Where is the blasphemy?"

James Talmage Jesus the Christ Chapter 28 answers the Ye are Gods question the best.

"Plainly they had found no ambiguity in His words. He then cited to them the scriptures, wherein even judges empowered by divine authority are called gods. . ."

But doesn't what you are saying, "the Ps 82:6 gods question absolutely as divine gods and not human judges", contradict what Talmage is saying?

Is it possible that Talmage is wrong here?